DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 313 802 FA 021 4R5

AUTHOR Anderson, Beverly L.; And OthersTITLE Policy Making with a Difference: The Story of

Connecticut's Common Core of Learning.INSTITUTION Education Commission of the States, Denve. , Colo.;

Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement ofthe Northeast & Islands, Andover, MA.

S ?ONS AGENCY Danforth Foundation, St. Louis, Mo.PUB DATE Jan 89NOTE 51p.; The two tables contain small type and may not

reproduce clearly.AVAILABLE FROM Publication Sales, Regional Laboratory for

Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands,290 South Main Street, Andover, MA 01810 ($6.50 plus$2.50 postage and handling).

PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Academic Achievement; *Academic Standards;

Educational Development; *Educational Innovation;Graduation Requirements; *Knowledge Level; PublicSchools; Secondary Education; Student Evaluation;*Student Improvement

IDENTIFIERS *Connecticut

ABSTRACTThe changing economic and social situation, the rapid

expansion of tec-nology, and the explosion of available knowledg( arefundamentally alLering the world economy. Today, our nation'sstudents need not only basic skills, but higher level reasoning andcommunication and thinking ability, as well. In Connecticut, acommittee was formed to determine the skills, knowledge, andattitudes that constitute an "educated person" and that should berequired of the state's public secondary school graduates. Theresult, entitled "Connecticut's Common Core of Learning," completedin November 1986, identifies and documents the attributes andattitudes, the skills and competencies, and the understandings andapplications that are to be expected of the state's public secondaryschool graduates. In essence, because the committee shared thedocument with educators before its completion and carefullyconsidered their responses to the drafts, plans for implementationbegan before the document was even adopted by the State Board ofEducation. Included within this document are examples from Killingly,Groton, Bridgeport, and Glastonbury that illustrate the focuses andworking methods that are making the core a reality. The appendicescontain a copy of the April 1988 Connecticut State Department ofEducation "Challenge Update" and examples of study questionsconcerning student learning. (KM)

************* ***********************T7t******!************************** Reproauctions supplied by EDRS are `-he he.--t that can be made *

* from the original document. *

POLICY MAKING WITH A DIFFERENCE:THE STORY OF CONNECTICUT'SCOMMON CORE OF LEARNING

Beverly L. Anc knot!

Education Commission of the States

Pat L. Cox

The Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvementof the Northeast and Islands

and

Calleen O'Connell

Western Organization ConsultantsVancouver, Washington

with funding from the Danforth foundation

Published by

The Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvementof the Northeast and Islands

290 South Main StreetAndover, Massachusetts

and

Eduction Comntssion of the States1860 Lincoln Street

Denver, Cole ido 80295

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOrfii e of Eck.cafionai Hosea', t and fino/ovem, rt

EDUCATION/III RESOURCES INFORMATIONcEN (ER:c)

This dot root nas oefn reproduced afioceiv,J from Ise dors°, of ofgarfizafion

of luinating, Minor cnaiirjos na e test nIde to Ifi.pflvc

-eprodJf-fion qua; ly

Polo's of view or opir ons stated ,nisdecument do not necessarily represent officialOERI position o policy

January 1989BEST COPY AVAILABLE

'PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMAtON CENTER (ERIC)

Copies of this paper are available for $6.50 from The Regional Laboratory forEducational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands, 290 South Main Street,Andover, MA, 01810, 508-470-0098, or the ECS Distribution Center, 1860 LincolnStreet, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado, 50295, 303-830-3692. Ask for Regional Lab No.9059 or ECS No, SI-89-3.

0 Copyright by the Education Commission of the States, 1989.

The Education Commission of the States is a nonprofit, nationwide interstate compactformed in 1965. The primary purpose of the commission is to help governors, statelegislators, state education otficials and others develop policies to improve the quality ofeducation at all levels. Forty-eight states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa,Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are members. The ECS central offices are at 1860Lincoln Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80295. The Washington office is in the Hallof the States, 444 North Capitol Street, Suite 248, Washington, D.C. 20001.

It is the policy of the Education Commission of the States to take affirmative action toprevent discrimination in its policies, programs and employment practices.

CONTENTS

Preface

Summary vii

Introduction 1

The Connecticut Story: Background 3

Creating a Statewide Vision of an Educated Person 7

Stimulating Momentum Throughout the System 13

Implications For Policy Makers 25

Next Steps 31

Appendix A Connecticut's Common Core of Learning

Appendix B - Evaluation Questions

PREFACE

This report is for education policy influencers -- those whn shape the rri,_,.ce or methodof action that guides education decisions.

From spring 1986 through spring 1988, we had the unique opportunity to walk longsidepeople in Connecticut who are refocusing the education system on a richer and fullerrange of learning for all students. During this time, we watched the development andinitial implementation of a state board policy that specifies clearly and succinctly whatsecondary school graduates should know and be able to do. The intent of ourparticipation was two-fold: to link the new policy under development -- the CommonCore of Learning -- to local action; and to better understand what constitutes effectivestate policy making by observing and talking to those involved in the effort.Participation included being a part of the informal groups that developed theimplementation approach (revoking around the blue-ribbon committee process thatdeveloped the Core and a consortium of districts and other agencies ready to use it). Italso included assisting at consortium meetings, interviewing people about progress, andmeeting with state leaders to consider ways to make the policy as useful as possible.

In watching the development and initial implementation of the Common Core ofLearning, it became clear that there were special features of this setting and process thatwent far beyond simply linking policy development and implementation more closely.The Core is not a mandate, it is an invitation to focus on -- indeed, to discuss anddebate -- the content of schooling for aU the state's young people. Even before thepolicy statement was completed, state and local educators and others were using it as ayardstick -- a vision -- of what education should -- and could -- become. As such, it hastaken hold in a manner markedly different from the way most state policy is enacted,either in the development or the implementation stages. This document focuses onsome of the factors leading to this improved state education policy environment, itsconsequences, how people are talking about it and what seems to be necessary to sustainand build it.

We had two goals in preparing this report:

For people in Connecticut, our goal is to reflect a way of viewing and talking abouttheir reform efforts that will focus the nature of the debate, provide anotherperspective and encourage people in any and all parts of the education system topersist and redouble their efforts.

For people outside Connecticut, our goal is to provide a way to think about theirclimate of education reform -- be it at the state or local level -- and consider withtheir colleagues how they can play a role in education reform in a way that directsenergy and attention toward better learning for all students.

We wish to thank Gerald Tirozzi, Norma Foreman Glasgow and Gary King forextending the invitation to us to be involved in Connecticut; Theodore Sergi andElizabeth Schmitt for their acceptance of us as a part of their team to develop theimplementation approach for the new policy; Lorraine Aronson, Joan Baron, SusanBucknell, Wanda Du Puy, Pascal Forgione, Merle Harris, Douglas Rindone, LarrySchaefer and Betty Sternberg for their willingness to allow us to observe and discusswith them their approach to statewide implementation over the year or two following

the passage of the Common Core of Learning policy; Russell Beale, Jeanne Brown,Raymond Fillion, Ronald Furr, Susan Girard; Kt Ise. Marie Munch, Harold Rocketto,Dominic Spera and K. Michael Talbot (Ella Grasso); John Fulso, Rick Hoskins, AnnJurecic and Catherine Sampson (Killing ly); William Glass (Bridgeport); Jackie Jacoby,Steve Tegarden and Larry Tivin (Glastonbury) for their views and reviews of what hasbeen presented here about their schools and districts; and the many educators and policymakers within the legislature, districts, schools, regional service centers, higher educationinstitutions and state agencies and associations who also responded to our questions andshaped our thinking.

This effort was supported by a special grant from the Danforth Foundation to theEducation Commission of the States. Preparation of the document also .-vas partiallysupported by funds from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

Beverly Anderson, Education Commission of the StatesPat Cox, The Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and

IslandsCar leen O'Connell, Western Organization Consultants

vi

SUMMARY

The reform movement to date has fostered the recognition that the increasing changeand complexity of today's world requires that all students be educated beyond basicskills. Graduates of all our schools must know how to use their minds well if thiscountry is to be sustained into the 21st century. Moreover, there is the realization thatchange is not only inevitable, it is ongoing, and that our response to change mustprovide for the continual improvement of all parts of the education system -- not only inschools and colleges, but at the district and state level as well. Higher-order learning forall kids and organizing for ongoing change mark major shifts in our assumptions abouteducation and require refraining of mindsets as well a-, retooling of actions if we are toeffect true reform.

F' r kirgaIgst,estamoDifference: The of Connecticut's Common Core of Learningpresents a look at how education leaders in the state of Connecticut have signaled theseshifts in assumptions and the implications for action through both the process andproduct of policy development and implementation. The Connecticut approach revolvesaround the "blue-ribbon" committee process that developed the Common Core ofLearning -- a state board of education adopted statement of what high school graduatesshould know and be able to do and the consortium of schools, districts, regionalservice centers, higher education institutions and the state department of education thathave worked to bring the Core to life. In addition, there was a cross-agency group ofstate department staff and others who concentrated from the beginning onimplementation issues.

These familiar structures and processes were used in new ways to produce newoutcomes. Among the desired outcomes articulated by education leaders at all levels inConnecticut were four important characteristics of the general policy environment of acontinually improving system based on higher-order learning for all kids. Such a policyenvironment:

Raises expectations for those involved in the education system, adults and the youngalike;

Builds coherence within the system;

Stimulates action; and

Emphasizes the necessity of collaboration and shared responsibility amongstakeholders all those affected by the educa on system toward its ongoingimprovement aimed at higher-order learning fo, all students.

The pages that follow describe how these characteristics of the policy environment havebeen enhanced by the development and implementation, to date, of the Common Coreof Learning.

vii

INTRODUCTION

America needs an education system in which Ail students not only acquire vlore skillsbut skills that are different than those the current system provides. Equity andexcellence can no longer be a "one or the other" proposition. All students must be ableto both read and discern complex meanings. They must not only compute right answersbut be able to quickly estimate possible options. They must not only memorize text butalso be able to take responsibility for their work and personal Hs ,s and set high goalsfoi themselves. They must develop reflective and productive thinking skills and attitudes,be able to work with others and hare responsibility for their own learning. In short, allstudent., need not just basic skills, but higher level reasoning, communication andthinking capability.

There are many reasons for this urgent need: the shifting economic and social situation,the declining number of young people who will be entering the work force, the rapidexpansion of technology, the explosion of available knowledge. These conditions arefundamentally changing the world economy and are threatening America's ability tomaintain a democratic society. Ambitious world competitors, lacking the mineral andnatural resources that gave this country an advantage in a manufacturing economy, havecreated a different advantage for themselves as they move into the 21st century. Theyare educating their youth with the intellectual skills and self-discipline to succeed in theinformation, service and technological economy.

As tr;-. nation attempts to deal with economic challenges, Americans also are faced withthe challenges of a changing social fabric. More and more citizens are disconnectedfrom the social institutions and values that have been instrumental in shaping thisdemocratic society. Consequently, there is a growing sense of the need to focus on thedevelopment of engaged citizens as well as productive workers.

Leaders confronting this situation have begun to recognize that some fundamentalchanges are nc(tded to be able to provide students with the education they need. It'snot just a matter of doing more of the same or even doing V-e same things better. It'sdoing things entirely differently.

In recent years, leaders have created policies and taken action to give a quantitatvepush and elevate achievement scores. While these policies have raised scores in manyinstances and have captured the attention of students, educators and citizens, few peopleclaim that they are adequate for the challenge facing us: they have been necessary butnot sufficient. The policy strategies to make higher learning a reality may well need tobe different from those that raised scores on skills the education system already wasdesigned to impart.

The kind of changes needed are neither clear-cut nor simple. In order to meet students'changing needs, schools must become mor., adaptable and better able t" respond tochange as a normal part of the education enterprise. Static, centralized plans will notsolve the dynamic problems schools fa,e today. Instead of considering problems in lightof system constraints, pressure is building for a shift away from bureaucratic controls in

1

the management of schools. The difficulty inherent in this shift in thinking is that themanagement systems that would replace bureaucratic controls are not apparent.

Alternatives to traditional controls are, however, the subject of fledgling experiments inmany states and school districts. These experiments are of critical interest to policymakers, educators and concerned citizens seeking to understand the changes needed. Itis at this point that sharing the experiences of those engaged in new processes isespecially important.

Recent events in Connecticut have provided an opportunity to determine what thesegeneralities mean and how they play out in real life. The pages that follow present apicture of how people in Connecticut have attempted to put these conditions in place.The story in Connecticut is not perfect: mistakes have bee__ made, actions have notbeen taken, perspectives have been confused and misairected a, times. Indeed, withoutcontinuous attention and leadership, the vision and its potential impact are at risk ofpetering out, never to have impact on many of the children in the state. Yet manypositive steps have been taken that need to be highlighted and encouraged to developand expand.

At this point in the policy development and implementation stage, perceptions withinConnecticut about the Common Core of Learning vary widely. Two purposes are servedby the following report about the Common Core's development. The first is to furtherbroaden the debate about the Common Core, what it may mean to the citizei s ofConnecticut, and how it should be used. The second is to signal new directions forpolicy making, in which those who design policy avoid constrictive mandates, but insteadstake out a direction while leaving room to maneuver as shifting circumstances dictate.

2

THE CONNECTICUT STORY: BACKGROUND

Connecticut, like most states, is experiencing multiple changes simultanerisly. Its citiesare attracting newcomers from many cultures, many of whom are not educated in eventheir native languages. At the same time, the nature of work opportunities increasingly isbeing divided into high-paying jobs that require technicL1 or other advanced skills, andlow-paying jobs that require minimum skills. As the number of low-income familiesgrows, the number of at-risk children and youth also increases. These shifts are creatinga state of stark contrasts. According to the state department of education's five-yearplan, there are actually two Connecticuts: one wealth; with many advantages, the otherpoor, made up largely of minorities and shut off from opportunities. Statewide masterytesting has revealed great disparities in skills and competencies of students incommunities of different economic levels.

Recognizing the seriousness of the shifting social and economic conditions of the state,Governor William O'Neill encouraged the development of Jobs for Connecticut's Fut--- a public/private initiative that produced a report identifying the kinds of jobs that willbe available in Connecticut over the next decade and the skills and education necessaryto fill them. The report points out that "Connecticut needs to approach education,training and management in ways that enhance critical thinking and interpersonalabilities, as well as knowledge."

Along with the push for education changes based on the economic situation was thepush from those concerned about equity. Educators and other statewide leadersrecognized the need to move forcefully toward providing equity and excellence of schoolexperience for all students. The focus needs to be not only on basic skills, but onhigher-order learning for all, at the same time that basic skills are being acquired. Asone teacher put it, every student should have a chance to learn "the good stuff."

Attempts to reframe the problems of education and understand the changes needed ledto a pivotal question -- what should an educated citizen know and be able to do? Inother words, what kinds of outcomes should be expected from the K-12 experience?

The Common Core of Learning (CCL) Committee was formed to answer this question.The CCL Committee was an outgrowth of the work of previous advisory committees tothe state board of education and the commissioner including the GraduationRequirements Committee and the Superintendents' Discussion Group on EqualEducational Opportunity.

On January 8, 1987, newspapers across Connecticut announced that the state board ofeducation had adopted the Common Core of Learning "as its standard of an educatedcitizen and as its policy on the skills, knowledge and attitudes that are expected ofConnecticut's public secondary school graduates." Two weeks later, teams of e ;ucatorsand board members from 20 districts across the state, regional service centers and stateagencies met to form the Common Core of Learning Consortium. As a consortium, theyannounced their intent to make the Core a reality in their location.

3

Connecticut's Common of Learning is a document that identifies the skills,knowledge and attitudes expected of public secondary school graduates. It is organizedunder three major headings with subheadings that reflect significant groups of attitudes.skills and knowledge:

Attributes and attitudes: self-concept, motivation and persistence, responsibility andself-reliance, intellectual curiosity, interpersonal relations, sense of community, moraland ethical values.

Skills And competencies: reading, writing, speaking, listening and viewing,quantitative skills, reasoning and problem solving, learning skills.

Understandings . the arts, careers and vocations, cultures andlanguages, history and social sciences, literature, mathematics, physical developmentand health, science and technology.

As important as the Core itself, however, are its preamble and epilogue. It is in thepreamble that it is made clear that high expectations are held for all students: "Wefurther believe that these skills, knowledge and attitudes constitute a set of expectationsthat all students can achieve regardless of diverse learning rates and styles... .

Connecticut's Common Core of Learning reflects a commitment to excellence in publicelementary and secondary education and to high expectations of all our students."

The epilogue emphasizes that making the Core a reality is a responsibility shared amongmany. 'The expectation that each student can and should achieve the Common Core ofLearning will require schools to change.. . . This change emerges only when all ofsociety shares a vision of what ought to be and expresses a sense of urgency for the needto act. . .. For this vision to become a reality, many different groups should take actiun.Educators, parents, other citizens, community organizations, employers and others shoulduse the Common Core of Learning (CCL) in a variety of ways." The charge is not leftambiguous. The policy then identifies 12 concrete examples of ways to act, includingexamples for any and all groups in Connecticut that share the responsibility foreducation -- local boards, teachers, administrators, higher education, the statedepartment of education, employers, students, parents, community members and others.(See Appendix A for further information on the CCL.)

The Common Core did not spring suddenly to life. Important conditions and peopleconverged at a time when citizens and educators were Sensing the deep need to establisha focus and vision for the education system that would guide them through the roughwaters of change.

The CCL also illustrates the evolution of the state's role over the last 10 to 15 years.According to a district director of staff development: "The CCL does not reflect a recentchange [in the way the state department of education develops policy], but it is a majorchange over the last 10 to 15 years. The State Department of Education gives others anopportunity to participate in the development of a project. Things are much moredecentralized, there is much more of a dialogue being fostered."

4

Tne Common Core of Learning itself is one strand of a long-range goal of the statedepartment of education and other actors in education: to define equal educationalopportunity as a part of simultaneously enacting equity and excellence for all. One partof the strand has been to define the inputs to schooling; the Standards Committee hasaddressed that, looking at resources and staffing. The Common Core of Learning hasfocused on the outcomes of schooling. A critical part of the outcomes must be thathowever assessment is done, the performance of subgroups -- whether based on race orgender -- will not be expected to differ from average scores of the whole.

5

CREATING A STATEWIDE VISION OF AN EDUCATED PERSON

The significance of the Common Core of Learning is as much in how it was developedas in its content, for it is in its development that the vision began to be a shared one.This kind of sharing encourages learning and establishes a commitment to action.

The Core, the members of which are Fled in the table below, was developed by a blue-ribbon panel but not in traditional committee isolation. Table 1 lists the members ofthe Committee. The CCL Committee drew on the best of information availablenationally, they interacted with educators and the public ,hroughout, they involved thestate department staff who would be instrumental in making it a reality, and theyworked simultaneouslj on an implementation strategy. Above all, they never lost theircommitment to excellence and their ability to ask the hard questions.

The relatively small size of the committee and the previous experience of manymembers contributed to a highly competent operation. Many members had participatedin previous policy dcw.lopinent efforts and knew where the Core fit in the context ofoverall statewide policy. The members represented multiple constituencies in the state;from students, parents and the community to teachers, administrators and boardmembers. The chairs, for example, were picked to represent higher education and

siness: the two groups with an essential perspective on what high school graduateseed to know and he able to do.

TABLE 1

Common Core of Learning Committee

John T. Casieen III, P esident, Th.: University of Connecticut, Co-chairBad' G. Foster, Pres.oent, The Aetna Institute for Corporate Education, Co-chairJoan Carter, Pres:dent, T and I' Inc.Joseph J. Cirasuolo, Supenntnndent, Clinton Pvblic SchoolsFernando Comulada, Vice President for Latin A nencan and International Division Connecticut Bank and Trust CompanyJoseph J. Crisco, Jr., Director of Governmental Affairs, United TechnologiesJennifer C. Goldberg, State Student Advisory CouncilMane S. Gunn, Superintendent, New Britain Public SchoolsLee Hay, 1983 Connecticut and National Teacher c the (ear, Manchester Put,lic SchoolsRaymond Lenoue, President, Connecticut Association of Boards of EducationJulia McNamara, President, Albertus Magnus CollegePeg Pen Ilie, President, Parent-Teacher Association of Connecticut, Inc.David J Quattropani, Assistant Superintendent, Newtown ,.choolsHelen Regan. Coordinator, Secondary Teacher Certification Program, ConnecticutEmma Jean Stepherson, Principal, Bassick High "..shools, Bridgeport Public SchoolBetty Tianti, President, Connecticut State AFL-00Deborah Gladding Willard, 1986 Connecticut Teacher of the Year, Glastonbury Public SchoolsN. Yarborough, President, P._ College

Es Officio

Norma Foreman Glasgow, Commissioner of Higher EducationGerald N. Tirozn, Commissioner of Education

Contributing Alternate Members

Nat Bates and Barry Williams, Connecticut State AFL -CIOMerle Hams, Department of Higher EducationDavid Suismii, State Student Advisory Council

Another aspect of the development process that he!pcd the committee steadily focus andrefocus toward the outcome was the interplay between it and the state department teamthat was supporting it. The team, comprised of a cross-section of staff, brought multipleperspectives to the development effort. The multiple perspectives, however, were alwaysintegrated prior to presentation to the Committee. The lead staff person for thecommittee described the process this way:

It's my job to take what seems the best of seven different staff p6ints,of viewand give that to the committee and let them either buy it or modify it. I'd haveto say in most cases they never bought anything we gave them; they reallysmoothed things around and redefined things. It's theirs then. 'Tlrit's really whatyou've asked them to do. They really created what the final woduct is.

The statt irtment team worked to set the conditions that would encourage debateand discussion as the committee steadily worked toward the finished product. From thefirst meeting in 1986, the state department staff and the co-chairs of the committeediscussed issues among themselves and urged the committee to debate not only thecontent of the Core but also the shape of the product. The relationship between whatwas being said and how it was being said created a healthy tension throughout thedevelopment process and focused it from the beginning on the desired outcome: toproduce a usable document that would change education in Connecticut.

It was also clear that both equity and excellence were essential. In other words, the goalwas to develop high standards that all of Connecticut's students would be expected toachieve.

The committee was building on significant work that had already been (lone inr7onnecticut and through national and regional research efforts. Thus, while the taskwas a major one, the committee members, because of the broad membership of thecommittee and its use of national networks and consultants Id the advantage of seeinghow the debate was being framed in other places and in otner ways. As a result, theywere able to bring to their discussions a considerable base of knowledge.

The final product was meant to guide the school improvement efforts of all theparticipants in the educational enterprise, not by mandate, but by the strength of theideas contained in it. Developing a shared vision for the outcomes of schooling meantcreating a document that could serve as a focus for local goals and student objectives,for curriculum and instruction, for professional development programs and for redesignof student assessment and program evaluation. The document had to he, above all,solid and usable.

The committee had only 10 months to conduct and complete its work. The short timeframe was necessary so that the committee's work would be completed in time to bemost helpful to school districts as they reviewed their goals, due to the state departmentof education in July 1987. This forced the group to remain committed to understandingtheir differences of opinion, resolving conflicts and constantly moving the projectforward. Each of the nine meetings of the committee focused sit moving the productforward, not on general discussion.

8

Ina number of cases opinions of group members were diametrically opposed right fromthe Sian. But, even with the diffei cut peispectives, the c ititulittee found couununground. Because of the body of knowledge that existed on the topic of what studentsshould know, the members debated about resource documents and their contents ratherthan one another's perspectives. For example, committee members were asked to eachidentify their top three resources out of those provided. The state department staff thentook the top five from the voting and arranged them in chart form. By identifying howthe articles were similar and how they were different, the debate was somewhatreframed -- there were more similarities than differences.

In this way the committee debated and determined the major sections of ric rgicsiicp11

Common Core of Learning. Perhaps the most important and time-consuming was thepreamble, which states the purpose of the document. Committee members had to cometo grips with the fundamental nature of the document. One member recalls, "Someonewould say, 'This is a curriculum Project, isn't it?' and someone else would say, 'Wait aminute, I want to assess student outcomes here.' Is this a student achievement projector it is a curriculum project? Who do we hold these up to: teachers who are teachingcertain curriculum? Or do we hold these as a set of standards up against every graduateof our public high school?"

By May 1986, the committee had hammered out the vision of the Core by focusing onthe major issues to be addressed in the preamble with the main points under each.These issues were outlined in the form of four questions: What is the purpose of theCCL? What are the underlying assumptions? What does the CCL represent? And howwill the CCL be used?

The answers to these questions shaped Connecticut's Common Core of Learning. Thepurpose of the document, and of the committee itself, was to rethink how learning isdefined. Among the critical assumptions underlying the document is the need for multi-dimensionality, a view of learning based on the whole child. Inclusion of students'attitudes and attributes, for example, adds dimension to the definition of learning. TheCommon Core of Learning represents a first step in articulating a vision of successfulschooling in tlis broader context. The document is to be used to make that vision reaiby acknowledging a larger range for success -- attaining basic skills is only a piece of theexpectations rather than the whole of it. The preamble sets out the premises that theCore is for all students, that outcomes should focus on the wlIole child, and theoutcomes are based on the total educational experience, not just curriculum.

In June, 1986, committee members reviewed a draft preamble and an outline ofCsgmecticut's Common Core of Learninz. Over the summer, the committee staffdrafted the text of the document, which was presented at a pivotal September meeting.Some sections were easier to draft than others. For example, only a few resourcesoffered solid material that could be used for the attributes and attitudes section, whilethere was plenty of expertise available on curriculum topics. In reviewing the items anddebating inclusion or deletion, one criterion the committee members used was, "Would Iwant this for my child?" The final draft of the Core was ready in November 1986.

The many outreach activities that the committee and staff team conducted also informedthe development of the Core, beginning from the start of the committee's work. Theseincluded but went far beyond the public hearings that are usually held to obtain

L

9

reactions to a finished policy. At the first committee meeting in March 1986, thecommittee told their lead staff person that they wanted to talk to teachers. "They forcedme to do that . . . and I was ticked. I thought, 'Here we are giving you all thesedocuments, you've got the greatest staff in the world that can give you anything youwant. Just start banging it outi'

In April 1986, committee members and staff visited Glastonbury High School, HartfordHigh School, and Middlebrook Elementary School in Trumbull; in each setting therewas a lively give-and-take on the content, meaning and use of the Core. "It turned outthe places we went to were very helpful and it helped shape the committee's views. [Forexample], a little elementary school staff played out this whole issue of self-roacept andthat affected things heavily."

The same schools were visited again in September, this time to discuss the draft of theCore. Visiting a variety of settings over time enabled the committee members to seeacross curricular domains, understand the interplays with assessment, and view thepotential for implementation in these very different types and sizes of school systems.These school visits were a departure from the usual task force work in that thecommittee members talked to school people in their own environments instead of askingteachers and administrators to come to committee meetings.

The school visits were just the beginning. Committee members and staff attendeddozens of other meetings, fostering exchange and debate in each. In this way, most ofthe major constituencies around the state not only had input but became aware of thedevelopment of the Core and its potential. In addition, the committee staff circulatedliterally thousands of copies of the draft preamble and outline and then the draft Coreto individuals and organizations around the state. They received hundreds of responses,some focusing on the content of the Core, some on its use, some on its assessment. Thisinput was ali used by the committee as it shaped the final document.

In the end, the CCL Committee successfully resist7c1 a temptation common to the policymaking arena -- the temptation to prescribe. The committee's process did not fractureinto any narrow focus on pedagogy or sp -ial interests or scarce economics. Committeemembers tolerated high levels of tension until an integrative approach was achieved.

Confronted with pressure to translate the Common Co, into some kind of action plan,the commlitee chose instead to add an epilogue. It is here that one of tide most strikingdifferences between the Connecticut experience and the usual policy making becomesclear.

The epilogue is simple on the surface -- it merely suggests a dozen ways that localboards, teachers and administrators, districts, institutions of higher education, state andlocal government officials, students, parents and community members might each thinkabout the meaning of the CCL and use it to reflect on what they do and how they do it.But behind this deceptively simple suggestion is a powerful message for those whochoose to hear it. The message is that each of these groups and individuals are trustedto stop and think for themselves about their work. The message is that individual andcollective reflection is the way to achieve the high expectations embedded in the CCL.The message is that all of the people involved in education have the power, theresponsibility and the tools to change.

10 II

Why Is It So Powerful?

Statewide systems do not change overnight by a single policy, but one can addstrategically to the momentum of change that has begun. The power of the CCLappears to derive from the fact that:

It is one strand of an overarching strategy to effect change in multiple dimensions.

It targets all students, not a particular special population.

It focuses on outcomes in students -- what they should exhibit, be able to dorather than inputs or processes of education such as programs or course offerings.

It focuses on a full range of outcomes for students, not just basic or minimum skills.

It includes descriptions of successful outcomes of schooling in the affective domain,such as those represented in the attitudes and attributes section.

It is aimed at maximum potential of the student, not minimum competency.

T. goes beyond those aspects of schooling that can be measured quantitatively.

It is linked to what has gone on before in the state.

It focuses on the whole student, not a single aspect.

It involves bringing together an emerging vision in an articulate way so people beginto use a common language about the essence of education what students shouldknow and be able to do. It is designed to infuse meaning and give focus to planningand operations rather than be a stand-alone or add on.

It clearly suggests that multiple organizations and different types of role groups needto participate to successfully implement its contents.

It has implications of potentially vast dimensions for change not only in schools anddistricts, but also the state department of education, higher education andthroughout the entire system.

$Its development and implementation is based on fostering a range of uses andpersonal responsibility rather than mandating compliance.

Its message is subtle but the implications for deep implementation are extremelycomplax and in fact amount to system reconfiguration to make possible the desiredoutcomes.

It acknowledges the difficulty of the task and is committed to the long haul ratherthan the quick fix.

11

STIMULATING MOMENTUM THROUGHOUT THE SYSTEM

The changes implied by rualComnionCorp.e UgarDing are immense, andmaking those expectations a reality is a long-term commitment. If the state departmentof education had been less committed to the project, if the CCL Committee membershad been less determined to consider implementation, if the educators anu citizens ofConnecticut had been less willing to take responsibility for thinking about 'the CommonCore and experimenting with its ideas, it might all have ended as simply anotherinteresting concept.

But it hasn't happened that way. Within two weeks of the document's adoption by thestate board of education, a consortium of 20 school systems voluntarily beganimplementing the Core in a variety of ways. Table 2 lists the members of the CCLConsortium. How was this kind of enthusiasm generated? What contributed to thiscollective expression of willingness to experiment with the CCL? What didimplementation mean?

TABLE 2

The Common Core Of Learning Consortium

School Distncts State Department

AvonBndgeportBristolClintonDanburyDarienEast LymeFairfieldFalls VillageGlastonburyGrotonHartfordKillinglyManchesterMendenNaugatuckNew MilfordNorwichProspectTrumbullWolcott

Hartford

Regiaml Service Centers

Capitol Regional Educational Council(CREC - Windsor)

Regional Educational Services Comeptsthrough Unified Effort (RFSCIJE) - Litchfield

Area Cooperative Education Services(ACES) - Hamden

Cooperative Education Services (CES) - Fairfield

E. Connecticut Regional Educational cervice Center -(EASTCONN) - N. Windnam

Project Learn F LymeConnecticut Affiliate - ASCD Hartford

Part of the answer is that momentum towards implementation of the Common Corebegan shortly after the CCL Committee began its work. An informal cross-role groupwas formed in the summer of 1986 to work with the state department of education staffon developing an implementation approach. Also working with this group were stafffrom the Education Commission of the Staes and The Regional Laboratory forEducational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands.

13 lc

The discussions that took place among members of this group tended to focus on effortsalready going on across the state, and developing ways to integrate these efforts with thework of the CCL Committee became an important priority. The implementation groupreasoned that the improvement efforts underway could be both validated andstrengthened by the Common Core of Learning.

In these ways, the committee members and state department staff began to think aboutuse of the document, about implementation of its contents, right from the beginning ofthe development process. As the lead staff member reminisced with the implementationgroup in early 1987, after Connecticut's Common Core of Learning had been adopted bythe state board of education: "At the time [early 1986], I didn't want to schedule anymore meetings, I didn't want to talk to anybody else, and I didn't want to debate a lot ofissues with another group of people. Frani, ly, we just would have been thinking aboutimplementation n had you people not been here. From the beginning, theECS/Regional Lab relationship was one of use and implementation."

Finally, the committee's outreach effort played a crucial role beyond informationgathering -- it stimulated awareness of and interest in the CCL during the developmentprocess. By its willingness to "share" the document before its completion and tocarefully consider responses to the drafts, the committee harnessed a strategic kind ofmomentum for change.

In essence, plans for implementation began before the document was even adopted bythe state board of education. The early lessons being learned by those gearing up forimplementation contributed to the final development of the Common Core of Learning.The descriptions below provide examples of what districts and others have done in theCCL Consortium to begin to make the Core a reality. These examples were chosen toillustrate the kinds of focus and ways of working that seem to be moving the Coreforward.

Killingly

Killing ly is located at the eastern edge of Connecticut, along the Rhode Island border.Isolated from the more densely populated parts of the state until a major freeway wasput in a fc...: years ago, Killing ly has only recently begun to see change. Traditionally,about a third of its high school graduates went on to a four-year college; most of theyoung people went to work or into the military. Now, new people moving into thecommunity and other factors have combined to cause the school system to take a look atits program and the impact on students.

The principal at Killing ly High School describes how she became interested in the CCL."We've got just a ton of things going on at one time, including a visit from anaccreditation team in October 1988. We thought that maybe the structure of theCommon Core would help us pull all these things together." I said, "Gee, this would bea really wonderful thing. Let's d3 it!" I have a very willing staff. The people that Ichose to be involved are really the informal leaders of the school. In fact, at least threeteacher members of the CCL Committee have also been involved in the accreditationself-study, so the Core is explicitly mentioned in the accreditation report.

14 1 :_

Everything in this system has always been very reactive. We are for the first time trying

to develop a pn,active approach to planning and growth and change. The system is

using a planning process by developing five-year goals. Part of our five-year program is

to look at where we're going as a school system, not just as a high school. We're just

really at the very, very beginning of a process that will take several years. I see [the

CCL] becoming a strand [throughout the district], as we develop curriculum and

expectations for youngsters all the way thrc ugh."

According to the principal, Killingly had not taken part in a statewide initiative before.

Given its relative isolation, membership in the Common Core of Learning Consortium

was viewed as a way to build "closer connections" to other districts. "We thought the

Common Core Consortium would be an ideal way to network with people at the state

and with other communities that are around us."

English is the first area Killingly is working on. The three teachers of junior English

decided to make their classes more interesting and hit upon the idea of interdisciplinary

learning. During the summer of 1987, they began to make plans for changing their

classes ir, the new school year.

The teachers have particularly tried to oreak the thinking that only the upper-level

students should get all the "good stuff." Self-concept is a major focus of their work,

especially with kids in the vocational and general studies programs. "The whole list of

attitudes and attributes [in the CCL] is really important stuff. I think our talking about

students' self-concepts makes them aware of morals and moral decision making in

forming the society for tomorrow. We're really preparing them for that; that's the

purpose of the Common Core of Learning."

The teachers decided there would be four interdisciplinary projects per year, each

containing a type of writing focus as well as connecting subjects. The English-Science

connection has already been fostered in some preliminary ways. For example, as science

project oral report time approached, the science teacher contacted the English teachers

and coordinated with them so that students would be able to organize and write their

presentations with the support of their English class.

In another project, the Voc-Prep students read On the Beach, a powerful 1950's novel

about nuclear war. "Reading a 300-page book is something they never thought they

would do, let alone enjoy." They also saw the film and worked on developing critiquing

skills by comparing the film and the book. They did research on nuclear weapons,

reactors, radiation and fallout in conjunction with their science class. "The librarian was

the key to all these resources. She worked overtime to help out on all of this."

How did the Common Core fit into these changes? According to a Killingly staff

member, "Nobody said, 'Here's this document: go create.' We created and then along

came this document. Then the CCL team said 'This fits right in with what we're doing.'"

Another teacher commented, "I felt so good when I read the Core document because at

last I found something that agrees with my philosophy."

El laSulas2

Ella T. Grasso-Southeastern Regional Vocational Technical School, located on the shoreof Long Island Sound in Groton, is the only vocational-technical school in the CCLConsortium. At the end of the 1986-87 school year, the entire faculty of about 100 staffmet to discuss "Connecticut's Common Core of Learning." The scheduling of themeeting signaled its importance: the school day was designated an early release day,allowing the faculty to meet for two hours. The director provided lunch for the entirestaff and more than doubled the usual lunch period to 45 minutes. Each facultymember was provided with a notebook in which to keep materials relating to the CCL,another symbol of its importance and its expected continuation over time.

The staff divided into small groups to discuss the school's strengths and weaknesses fromthe perspective of the CCL. They then voted to identify priorities on which to focusattention. Writing was the nearly unanimous choice of everyone.

After the faculty meeting, a team of staff was assembled who were interested in workingon the CCL through writing. Technical and academic sides were equally represented."In voc-tech schools, the technical and academic are two different worlds, and that wasin the backs of our minds as we thought about the steering committee. The committeewas an equal mix, three from technical and three from academic. Te.an membersincluded teachers from drafting, English, machine tool, plumbing, science, as well as thetwo assistant directors, the director, and a consultant from the centrE.1 office. We hopedwe could do swne thing that would unite the staff."

The committee worked together for a week during summer 1987 "to develop goals,objectives and strategies to improve communication skills through writing." In spite oftheir diverse perspectives, the committee persevered and at the end of the week of workha,i developed a handbook entitled "Improving Communication Skills Through Writing"that describes the committee's work, lists suggested teacher objectives and activities, andprovides resources on writing.

The committee :nembers made a "united presentation" to the staff at the beginning ofthe 1987-88 school year. The faculty agreed to each develop two new procedures andone grading procedure related to writing in their respective classrooms schoolwide.According to one of the assistant directors, this was the first time the entire faculty hadever agreed to joint action in his more than 10 years at the school. The handbook wasavailable to provide concrete examples of possible writing activities. "Most of theteachers are finding out that the handbook is a help to them. They feel better about thework they're doing; it's more complete. The project is more practical than theoreticaland that might be the basic difference. People don't need to start from scratch on anextra job. The fact that [the committee] broke ground for them helps."

The staff was not prepared for the results of their diverse efforts. As the scienceteacher, who is the Ella Grasso team leader, observed in a meeting of CCL Consortiumteam leaders, "When everyone does something small, there can be major impact. Theteachers had never seen that before. The kids feel they're getting [writing] everywhereand are taking it seriously. The teachers are getting more enthusiastic." She also

16 G1

commented, "It's easier on the teacher when requirements for the students are the sameeverywhere."

One teacher commented that she was enjoying correcting papers more now that thestudents were expressing themselves: "They have a lot deeper thoughts than I thoughtthey had." A science teacher noted that a lot of students in study hail were asking forhelp with editing a writing assignment for a class. The machine tool teacher observed,"We are demanding more and getting more." A science teacher noted, 'The kids are notbalking." English teachers said that they no longer felt as though they were the onlyones working on communication skills.

The assistant directors monitored the implementation of writing activities throughclassroom observation and other forms of regular supervision. In addition, thecommittee and other teachers were sources of assistance to one another. The varioustechnical and academic departments shared lists of common terms to make essay andother writing easier. "Everyone was informed, everyone had input", a committeemember said. "It was a group decision to choose the subject and everyone iscooperating, right from the teachers who were most reluctant in the beginning down tothe students. It's a generally accepted program in the school. Everyone understands it.Everyone supports it."

The committee planned a series of three workshops in January, March and May,bringing in outside experts to address the topic of writing in technical subjects. Theyalso planned internal staff workshops for the alternate months. They knew the initialimplementation would raise a lot of questions for the staff.

The plumbing teacher artimilated the views of many staff just atter Christmas: "We'veset out to start something. We haven't gotten there yet. I don't expect all of a suddenthat things will clic _ige greatly. Have I noticed any great successes? It's too early! Giveme some ideas. See if I'm shaking the right tree." The director: "They're ready for the'why' of writing." The series of workshops, taken together, helped the faculty movetoward writing as a creative process, getting beyond the mechanics.

As the 1987-88 school year draws to a close, the students have all felt the impak.t of theCCL through the emphasis on writing. Examples abound:

Essay questions have been added to tests.

In plumbing, students are asked to write out questions and answer them in completesentences, along with spending more time on learning to read and write trade wordscorrectly.

In drafting, students' note taking receives more attention during theory lecture.

Science students are asked to be more consistent in use of no' 'books and usingword problems.

Students develop essays in the blueprint class.

Writing assignments are given in physical education, for example, about a particulargame ("You see their preconceived ideas").

17

English students write scripts for oral talks.

Every senior writes a resume and a letter of introduction to a business.

In mathematics, students prepare and answer word problems.

What happens next? Such a question has a number of answers. The director has thefunds to have the committee meet again this summer. 'They will review what we'vedone and decide what to take on next. The group will have some old members andsome new members."

The director: "I'd like the staff to get something out of it. The continuing educationunits that the state is requiring to continue their certificati6:, is cne way. I can't think ofanything better that we've done as a school. The staff, the time, I just think it's anatural!"

The active concern and support from the state department of education during 1987-88has been acknowledged and appreciated. The director commented, 'There seems to bea commitment from the state." The director concluded, "We have to keep a high profilewith the CCL statewide. Print more and more of these books [the Core document] andkeep on passing them out every year. We have to start talking about programs that arebeing carried out and programs that are working -- programs that aren't working andwhy.

Bridgeport

Bridgeport, which is the largest city in Connecticut, also has a very large inner-cityschool system. In District 3, CCL's effort as a districtwide initiative focused on criticaland creative thinking skills. A cross-level, cross-subject, cross-function task force guidesthe effort. The 20 task force members include teachers from different grade levels andsubject areas, principals, curriculum consultants, instructional coaches, district curriculumsupervisors, the director of professional development and three assistant superintendents.

The director of professional development explained the district's use of the Core: "TheCCL can be regarded as a prism. The entering white light is everything that will helpkids to learn. The CCL helps to break that white light into bands of differentcolors/areas of inquiry. One band of color could represent the area of critical thinking.When we pulled the task force together, the members felt that most of the areas in theCore were already being addressed to varying degrees. The area that wasn't beingaddressed as fully as needed and in a unified district approach was the area of thinkingskills. Our process represents a sequential narrowing of focus. We divided the thokingprocess into its component parts, and the component parts into their parts to facilitatetheir study."

Operationalizing the CCL's focus on all students, the task force developed a number ofinitiatives including a collaborative learning-Great Books pilot program in half of thecity's remedial reading classes in grades 3 through 8. The experiment has been sosuccessful that the task force plans to expand the initiative to include all the elementary

18 r.4 ,-. . ,

schools in 1988-89. Teachers who have implemented the proeram this yea: will serve asdistrict trainers for the teachers who will begin the program next year.

According to the director of professional development, "Collaborative learningexperiences provide perfect vehicles for the delivery of thinking skills instruction, andthe Great Books program has proven suitable for our purposes. We're relying heavilyupon our Common Core Thinking Task Force to be the messengers, the conduits fromthe team itself into the classrooms. They are serving as district leaders in terms offostering positive instructional change. We're asking the curriculum supervisors to lookat the wording of the Common Core in the thinking skills area. As they developcurriculum, as they identify training needs, as they interface with principals, as they lookat student assessment, we want them to use it as a guide -- a matrix for shaping theirthinking and their actions."

Among the other initiatives that are being piloted and closely monitored are:

The Strategic Reasoning Program in English classes

A Critical Reading Program at the secondary level

Training programs on the process approach to writing and select implementation ofthe Network Writing Program, The Connecticut Writing troject, and the GoodWriting Program

The Stech-Vaughn Thinking Skills model in science

Training sessions on Effective Questioning Techniques based on Bloom's Taxonomyof Cognitive Thinking Levels

The Barry Beyer Thinking Skills model in social studies

Training sessions on estimation, logic, math manipulatives and problem-solvingstrategies for mathematics teachers

Visual arts instructional units based on the Getty Model of Discipline Based ArtEducation

Discussion sessions on theme, purpose, and creative visualization in the PerformingArts Departrient

Development of a 124-term thinking skills glossary to facilitate the development of acommon thinking-skills language

"We want to ensure that a student encounters a similar structure for thinking andproblem-solving in every class; a unified learning paradigm," says the professionaldevelopment director. An example of this would be a youngster walking into math,science, literature and social studies classes and encountering the conscious use of athinking process to address different issues in a similar manner, be it a word problem,the dilemma of a character in a Shakespearean tragedy, or the question of how theworld might be different if President Kennedy had not been assassinated.

19

There have been several levels of increased articulation and integration as a result ofthe task force's work. One has to do with the concept of implementing a specificinitiative in many different contexts with a common purpose and language. Another hasto do with examining progress made through individual initiatives and how they fittogether. "We devote our task force meetings to reflection -- we review progress andreflect on our individual findings as we engage in the strategic planning process. We areestablishing procedures that will ensure that our district's thinking-skills efforts reflect aunified, holistic approach: in the task force meetings and in the teaching of students,"the goal is to take the fractured pieces and put them back together.

'The system is continually in flux, with the pieces always moving and shifting. Only if weact strategically can we move what we want where we want it and help clarify anextremely complex process for our students. The job of the task force is to effectchange at the student level. That's the bottom line."

'This is why we purposefully selected what we believe to be the most difficult area of all.An effective thinker can tackle any challenge. However, this charge is the mostchallenging task ever presented to an educator. The emphasis should not be on theindividual initiatives piloted in our district, but rather on the philosophical foundationfor our work, driven by the CCL."

Glastonbury

Glastonbury, an affluent suburb to the east of Hartford, offers what would appear to bean excellent school system, but community members are not complacent. Glastonburywas involved in the Common Core of Learning initiative from its inception: not onlywas a teacher at Glastonbury High School a member of the CCL Committee, but thecommittee visited Glastonbury High twice, early in the process of developing the Coreto discuss the general concept and later to discuss a draft of Connecticut's CommonCore of Learning.

A team from Glastonbury High came to the initial CCL Consortium meeting, and adecision was made to use the Core for the elementary re.lewai effort that was justgetting underway. The renewal project was a response to the growing concerns cfteachers, parents, and administrators that the elementary curriculum was vastlyovercrowded, resulting in multiple bits and pieces that pleased no one. An assistarsuperintendent 'ommented, "We're an academically oriented school system but we wantto meet the needs of all our individual kids. Out of our grade level meetings, out of ourmeetings with the principals, out of our meetings with parents came this common cry,and that is why, as we began to look at the issue, the superintendent said, 'We have toapproach this, in a unique ..vay.'"

As the district reportL i in an October 1987 news release on the topic: "Discussions onthe topic of curricult..n 'overload' at the elementary level were conducted in severalquarters. Some of the elementary building and grade-1' ,e1 workshop sessions were usedfor this purpose; it was an agenda item at principals' and directors' meetings, and thecentral administration conducted discussions with consultants from the state board ofeducation and the University of Connecticut. Several board of education meetings orworkshops were used to address some of the issues within the topic. In each of these

20 2 ,-:

discussions, several recurring concerns were identified Last June, shortly after the closeof school, these activities culminated in a 'Discussion Day' in which all elementary staff,parents and board of education members were invited to participate. At that workshop,small groups were formed to address the recurring issues and each group reported theirfindings at a general session of all participants." Secondary staff served as facilitators forthe groups, the first time there had ever been significant cross-level communication.

The Elementary Curriculum and Organization Renewal Project, "a long-term,comprehensive undertaking which could lead to significant restructuring of theelementary program," was the result of analysis of data from those discussions. The plancalls for four coordinating committees in the areas of curriculum/instruction, structureand organization of the schools, communication and staff development. These groupswill make recommendations to a Central Advisory Committee, which, in turn, will reportto the superintendent of schools.

An assistant superintendent noted, "We recognize the need to integrate writing into allof the other discipli-ls. The director of language arts here really subscribes to that, butwhen you try to nail down people who are promoting the approach, it is difficult to getspecific. We've developed an extremely strong writing program which is doing a lot ofintegrating across curriculum, not as much as we'd like, but the director is saying he'snot ready to give up the strength of our program. We recognize it as being a verticalprogram, but we're not willing to give it up for something called 'Writing Across theCurriculum' which nobody can define."

An independent consultant helped the central office administrators put together aparticipatory plan, provided training for group leaders, and acted as a facilitator duringsome meetings. As she put it, "Participation doesn't mean that all people have to be atall meetings at all times. Don't ask teachers to work outside the classroom onorganizational stuff without clear goals -- prevent burnout."

The assistant superintendent thinks there may be outcomes in four domains: "a betterprocess for determining what will be taught, for setting priorities and weeding out;movement toward interdisciplinary teaching, for example, teaching reading throughcontent areas; a request for new models for providing special services such as specialeducation and remedial education as an alternative to pull-outs; and increasedawareness of what schools are expected to do, with individual perceptions comingtogether."

"Democracy takes time and effort," says the assistant superintendent. "Sometimes Iwould like to be a benign dictator, because what it would take me 15 minutes to do, ittakes two hours to communicate. We have so many irons in the fire. We probably have60 to 70 teachers active on committees; we have linked the elementary renewalcommittees to ongoing committees through liaisons. There are several of us here, but ittakes a lot to keep it all going."

Another administrator observed, "You may have all the elements, but if you haven't gotsomeone pulling it together and running the whole show, then they never come together.That's starting with the board, too. If you don't ,u11 them in, then you're fighting themall the time. I think the state department can really serve the same role [statewide],

21 4 ';

maintaining that kind of total picture, intellectual picture, visionary picture, or whateveryou want to call it. Even thAngh it's hard, they can help cehnnl systems ran it."

Glastonbury anticipates that the ,:.lementary renewal effort will eventually spread to thejunior high and high school until the entire K-12 curriculum is affected.

Regional Education Starice Centers

The regional education service centers (RESCs) are working with the CCL in two ways:assisting member districts in their operationalization and implementation of Core-related activities; and using the CCL to examine their own operations. For example,one RESC has completed a study of its curriculum for special education students. Theteam working on it found that only the foreign language section of the Core documentwas something that they could not figure out how to address.

Higber Education

Viewed as one of two main receivers of high school graduates along with business,higher education had significant representation on the CCL Committee. By and large,the reaction of higher education regarding the Core was positive. For example, whenasked to review a draft of the Core document, the president of the University ofHartford wrote, "It is worth noting that the proposed Common Core of Learning is ontarget when it comes to the traditional expectations our faculty have of high schoolgraduates, and it is our opinion that the process of baccalaureate education would bestrengthened considerably by its full implementation."

While the deans' group and others reviewed drafts of Connecticut's Common Core ofLearmaig, higher education institutions have Lot yet begun to address the implications ofthe Core for its teacher preparation a d undergraduate programs. However, thedevelopers of the alternative certification program examined the Core document as theydesigned training for individuals entering teaching from other occupations. In addition,some universities 'Pe working directly with s_hools, helping to evaluate curriculum,working to help structure curriculum to address aspects of the Core.

The state department of higher education is conducting its biennial update of itsstrategic plan. Just as 1986, the plan ha included helping to develop the CCL, therevised plan will include ways to promote use of the CCL by institutions of highereducation. Among ".,e 'ossible areas of use are institutional assessment, looking atundergraduate program- student assessment (particularly for the placement of incomingfreshmen) and teacher -!paration programs. The updated strategic plan .vas presentedto the Board of Governors for Higher Education at the end of 1988.

State Department of Education

The state department. of education has been involved in a variety of efforts aimcd atfostering and deepening use of the CCL inside the department as well as in distii,As andregional service centers. In this regard, the department is unlike its counterparts inmany other states, where internal implementation of a policy is not really thought z.,1,Dut,

22 4:;

let alone attempted. During the development of the Core, the cabinet, which includesthe top staff tic:aim divisiuns, dist...ssed the implications of the Core for the departmentand took steps to encourage its use right from the start. For example, the departmentpersonnel that served as staff to the Common Core of Learning Committee weredeliberately drawn from different areas of the department, including tes ..; and

assessment.

Among the issues the Connecticut Department of Education is addressing is the type ofpersonnel needed, given the nature of the CC.. For example, the attitudes andattributes section of the document is raising the qu,sstion of expertise in self-concept andother social-psychological issues.

Partly because there is no pot of funds earmarked specifically for Core-related activities,and partly because of ttle knowledge that integration and consolidation are goals thatcannot be pursued through myriad streams of unconnected efforts, the department isworking to make its own operations more integrated. For example, in the competitivegrants process, districts can now submit one application that proposes integrated use ofmonies from different sources within the Division of Curriculum and ProfcsionalDevelopment. Additional points are given to those proposals that addressimplementation of the Common Core of Learning.

Other challenges include how to provide assistance not only to the many districts andschools that are actively seeking to operationalize the Core, but also to the many morethat have only just heard the label and want additional information. The departmenthas approached these needs in a variety of ways. A publication is being prepared foruse by educators, local board members, and citizen's groups that will highlight selectedgoals of local boards of education. Entitled "Models of Excellence: Local EducationalGoal Statements," it will feature two districts that have incorporated the Common Coreof Learning i'ito their goals and objectives for students.

Another major effort concerns the revision of the highly regarded series of curriculumguides prepared by the department. Referred to as "guides to developing curricuiumguides," the new versions will present a Corf based approach to curriculumdevelopment, emphasiz;ng integration.

To increase awareness of the Core, the department worked witu RESCUE, one of theregional service centers, to sponsor a statewide conference on the Common Core ofLearning. A series of speakers, both department officials and nationally knowneducators, evoked th° spirit and vision of the Core while attemi,:ing to provide someways of making that vision come alive in the everyday reality of schools. Severalhundred Connecticut educators and community members attended the one-day event,which also featured Core-related workshops on such topics as the arts. For more in-depth study, a r tige of Teaching and Learning Institutes during the summer of 1988focused on how to onerationalize the Core as part of the offerings on different curricularor instn. tional subjects.

The department continues to give support to the consortium member districts.Individual staff in the department, including division directors, are providing directassistance to districts and schools, seeing first-hand the challenges and opportunitiesschools encounter as they engage with the Core.

23 -2 8

PPrhapc the most a_mhitious initiative of all is the department's work in studentassessment. Department staff have reviewed all the state test instruments currently usedand identified the parts of the CCL that are not currently assessed in any way. Througha collaborative development process with districts and outside consultants, thedepartment is developing innovative approaches -- including student performance ratherthan pencil-and-paper modes -- to ascertain whether students are moving toward theoutcomes the Common Core of Learning describes.

Thus far, the department has addressed the Core as it relates to the curriculum andassessment of students. Another prime area for focus is its ambitious teacherassessment development efforts. Always, the challenge to move forward in severaldirections competes with the challenge to integrate and consolidate. The ConnecticutState Department of Education is making a serious effort to grapple with thosechallenges.

24

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY MAKERS

The many hurdles and outright barriers that people encounter as they move forward candrain momentum in the same way that materials conducting electricity create resistance,diminishing the electricity flow. Educators, like scientists, must search for ways toconduct energy without draining or dissipating it.

In Connecticut, these kinds of hurdles and harriers were encountered in a variety ofsettings as individuals sought to bring the Common Core of Learning to life in theirrespective settings. The CCL experience in Connecticut provides some important ideasfor policy makers both in terms of directions to take and barriers to remove so thateducators can do the best possible job of teaching and helping students learn.

1. Take actions that raise expectations for all students and adults, bringing togetherthe need for both excellence and equity

Changes in education need to be driven by a focus on learning, instead of a primaryfocus on changing teaching, leadership or administrative practices. The latter activitiescan become ends in themselves, making it easy to lose sight of the need for promotingthe best in learning.

High expectations anti learning also must apply to all students. Changes need to hegrounded in a belief that all students can and must learn more than the basic skills.There is a long way to go before all students have the necessary opportunities to learnthe higher skills and content that will enable them to be productive citizens and workersin today's world. Only in the last few years have educators and the public alike takenseriously the problem of the large numbers of students who are physically, emotionallyand mentally leaving the schools.

A major barrier is the enormous complexity of trying to provide the best of learning toall students. Targeting only some students for higher -order learning, Jr focusing changeefforts on goals such as teaching skills and administrative practices, are ways of ignoringthe complexity of schools' work.

Individuals often ignore the complex in order to take action. And in a nation such asours with a bias for action, the complex is often disdained in favor of the simple. Theproblem is that the simple action is often no more than a random fragment of whatneeds attention. To paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, we often choose the simplicityon tins side of complexity rather than the simplicity on the other side of complexity.

Because it is an examplo of simplicity on the other side of complexity, the Coredocument may appear deceptively simple to some people. At the same time, plumbingthe full implications of its provisions is a major challenge. One of the biggest barrierscomes from not acknowledging the importance of vision and reflection. However, amajor emphasis of the CCL is that people will develop a vision of schooling afterthinking about the Core's expectations for students, and they will reflect on how theirwork addresses elements of that vision.

If one talks to individuals involved in education in Connecticut -- or many other statesfor that matter -- one hears over and over about the press to act on many fronts at the

25n0 .,..'

same time. There is no group or level that is immune. The same message is heard inthe state departments of education, among principals, teachers and superintendents, inrural as well as urban and suburban areas.

With such a press, individu...i., are unlikely to take the time to reflect, to refocus, torecalibrate their individual actions in reference to a shared goal. In fact, reflection isnot much esteemed in a nation with a bias for action. Yet, it is critical: a coherenteffort to address a complex issue is impossible if those involved never haVe theopportunity to stop and think about what they are doing and what they hope to achieveby it.

Effective action does not spring full-blown and coordinated from disparate individualsand organizations. Teachers are too often exhorted, indeed, required to change, yetgiven no time to do so. What does "time to change" mean in education? It meansmoving beyond the notion that teacher: 'Ire only working when they are in front of thestudents to acknowledging the shared responsibili y for designing and operating the jointenterprise that is the school. Roles such as "substitute" teachers must give way tostaffing plans and student groupings that allow ali the adult:, some intentional freedomof movement during the work day. Accepting the complexity helps lead to broaderacceptance that the changes will take lots of time, careful thought, and discussion.

2. Stimulate momentum toward achir "ng desired student outcomes

It is essential to learn how to capture the existing momentum among people and directit toward a clearer focus on student outcomes. A barrier here is often lack of awarenessof an effort and how it might dovetail with one's own work.

The Common Core of Learning has probably received more publicity on a continuingbasis than any other statewide education initiative in Connecticut. Some 1,500 copies ofthe final draft were circulated for comment by the committee. Copies of the finaldocument have been distributed in a variety of ways, including the commissionercarrying them with him everywhere he goes. The state department newsletter devotedits spring 1988 issue to the Core, distributing 20,000 copies. A spring 1988 statewideconference on the Core attracted many individuals who had not previously seen it.There remain, however, vast numbers of educators who are either unaware of the Core,or are unsure of its implications for them.

Schools, districts and the other organizations working with the CCL Consortium had todeal with increasing awareness. Some began with attempts to build awareness externallyas well as internally in the organization, others dealt with the entire organization, othaswith a cross-section and still others with only a relatively small group. In every case,there was the challenge of spreading the word while also trying to deepen understandingand take action.

Lack of awareness of other vital knowledge has also been a barrier. Some organizationstried ko go about change without understanding that individuals need to learn how tocollaborate, that there is a body of knowledge and behaviors associated with the changeprocess and so on. Similarly, until the advent of the Core, many people had notseriously considered the attitudes and attributes associated with successful learning andperformance. E, n though these have been identified as important, the knowledge and

practice base for them have not been widely developed at either the state or local level.rur example, weic are no psychologists or autotugla La on the state department stab toprovide the bridge to knowledge in these other fields.

Ongoing professional development at all levels of the system, as exemplified inConnecticut, is one way to work on this barrier. Use of consultants and shifts in hiringpractices to obtain people with the necessary knowledge and abilities are others.Perhaps the most productive long-term way to address this lack of awareness is to findways to promote the exercise of curiosity. Take steps to build a school climate thatvalues adult learning as an important part of the work of schooling. Teachers andprincipals can become more assertive of their needs for continuing professional growthwhen a climate that supports learning, seeking and questioning is in place.

3. Encourage coherence throughout the education system.

Busyness and bits and pieces dominate much of the education world today. Amidst thedisparate pieces, people lose touch with the meaning of what they are doing. Theenvironment for moving forward must encourage coherence. This can be done throughbuilding teams where perspectives and tasks are shared. It can be done throughcontinual renewal of the vision of student learning, through questioning the way thingshave always been, through discussion and reflection, through integrating rather thanadding to the lists of things to do.

There has been a tremendous amount of educational improvement activity inConnecticut at all levels in recent years. Most education organizations are alreadyinvolved in several efforts that require significant time and effort. Individuals in allparts of the system feel overcommitted and very reluctant to fit in yet anotherinnovation; they are overwhelmed by the sheer number of individual activities facingthem.

Even though the Common Core of Learning expressly enjoins organizations not tomerely add on to implement its provisions, some have done just tha' thereoy multiplyingthe number of activities in the school day. The result: the bits grow smaller and morenumerous until meaningful activity becomes impossible.

Glastonbury, in its elementary renewal, has finally called a halt to the proliferation ofcurriculum and activity, spurred on by teachers and parents complaining about the"overcrowded curriculum" and its effects on students. As one speaker at the CommonCore conference said: "less is more."

Several other versions of adding on rather than reconfiguring are evident in Connecticut.One version is related to funding. Many schools tend to add on rather than integratewhen initiative come from the outside and have funding attached. The tendency is tokeep the activity separate rather than use the funds to get started and then focus onreallocation of existing resources to incorporate the activity into the mainstream of theschool's functioning. This happens for a whole litany of reasons ranging from formalrequirements for keeping funds separate to turf issues and unquestioned tradition.

Another barrier that tends to work against coherence is when people bank on stability ina changing environment. In moving forward, people often act as though nothing will

ever change and yet the opposite is the reality: people themselves change constantly Infact, research has demonstrated that a successful improvement effort breeds its ow,,.instability: key players are promoted or move on to other opportunities, therebypotentially derailing the effort.

For example, in one school in the consortium, the leader has been promoted to a newlycreated supervisory position. Will the CCL, which began as a somewhat separateactivity and became integrated, work under new leadership? Will the new leader becommitted to the effort and/or understand the strategy that the previous leader had formaking it a regular part of the school's operation?

On the other hand, at the state level, "We had .1. major change in leadership [when thelead staff person left], which generally means a major change in direction. This programcontinued through the change in leadership. That's where I see the difference." As acommittee member observed, "A great many of us had to deal with very short-term, highvisibility, faddish projects and were put off by that: 'What's big in education this week .

. .' I don't think [the CCL] is viewed that way. This is viewed as an ongoing project,mainly because we had some high powered people come down to speak to us about it,and they also backed it up with some money."

The challenge of providing continuity in change is reflected in tl,e need tosimultaneously educate students even as we are changing the very education deliverysystem and its content. The significant curricular/imtructional changes required by theCommon Core are potentially disruptive of current educational processes that areworking well for students, many of whom badly need their education programs tocontinue working well. How to transform without being disjunctive is a major challenge.

Achieving coherence in the learning of students is no easy task. It requires carefullycrafted opportunities for people throughout the education system to analyze their actionsand determine bow their actions influence student learning. Working toward coherenceis the part that often is neglected in the rush to act, to pursue the items on lists of thingsto do. One consequence of neglecting this aspect of joint work is that individuals maylose the overall meaning of what they are about or never develop it in the first place.

4. Promote shared responsibility for learning and performance by students and adultsalike

Many of today's reforms have subtly undermined responsibility, by setting up systems ofone person checking up on another. Perhaps one of the most important issuessurrounding the Common Core work relates to a movement to share responsibility -- asituation where each person and group is taking responsibility for student learning. Thisis very different from the current reactive mode that focuses on one person holdinganother responsible for an often uncertain action. In one school a major barrier arosefrom trying to distinguish "what the state wants" from "what the community wants" from"what the school wants" rather than finding the intersect of purpose. Individuals andorganizations that have not articulated their own direction with an underst siding ofshared responsibility are vulnerable to being shoved around by any wind that blows.

Acknowledging insufficient student performance becomes very difficult in anenvironment focused on accountability rather than shared responsibility. The testing

28

results depress morale of teachers and principals who feel others are blaming them forthe situation. in a situation of shared responsibility, all parties from the school to thestate to the community are working on the solution; there is no one standing aroundtapping a foot impatiently.

Where them-versus-us accountability games dominate, there is an ever present networkof conflicts among factions and interests within the establishment, making it difficult toput in place a statewide system of quality control for the implementation.of the newpolicy let alone the assessment of outcomes. Attention is diverted to transferring blamerather than dealing with the actual problem.

NEXT STEPS

The experience with the Common Core of Learning in Connecticut is more tLan just aninteresting way of doing business -- it illustrates some concrete actions that can be takento better the odds for success in educational change endeavors.

Building on the work of others: During the actual development of the CommonCore of Learning, the committee built coherence into the policy itself by thoroughreview of documents prepared by other groups, intensive debate among committeemembers and asking questions of people at district and school levels that addressedmatters of implementation. Common Core of Learning Consortium teams mettogether periodically to share perspectives on what was working and on how toimprove their approaches to increased student learning. This sharing of informationhelped the teams to concentrate on the whole school experience rather than onesegment of it, such as the curriculum.

Developing shared The state department ofeducation convened the consortium team leaders -- representatives from schools,districts, regional groups, professional associations and higher education -- to takestock, share progress and think about what was needed for the future. It was, in thewords of one state department staffer, the first time a cross-role group hadassembled to discuss such an implementation. In the past, the group would havebeen all superintendents, all teachers or another role-alike group.

In fie individual districts and schools, various groups also met to discuss and debate,analyze and compare, integrate and synthesize -- anci to take action. In some cases,cross-subject groups of teachers met. In others, cross-role task forces worked outjoint activities for the schc al. In still others, whole faculties gathered to refocustheir activities, school-community groups met to develop a common understanding ofthe goals for students, and elementary and secondary teachers communicated for thefirst time about educational issues.

Using assessment: One of the most powerful tools a state has for encouragingcoherence is the assessment strategy used to determine progress in student learning.From the very early discussions of the Core, Connecticut state leaders insisted thatoutcomes would be assessed. However, their strategy of doing so was carefullydeveloped to encourage districts and schools to think through what they believedwas the appropriate way to design their educational program to achieve the fullrange of student outcomes. The state continued to use its mastery testing programto ensure a focus on basic skills while at the same time it set in motion thedevelopment of performance assessment measures that determine whether studentsare simply acquiring piecemeal skills or if they are able to apply and integrate theskills and knowledge they are gaining. The department is making it snownthroughout the state that such testing is under development, thus encouragingeducators to focus on students' ability to perform meaningful tasks rather than onlyon separate skills and knowledge.

Connecticut already has a track record in student performance assessment throughits Connecticut Assessment of Educational Progress (CAEP), which examinedstudent performance on a sampling basis in the areas of foreign languages, small

engine repair, drafting, carpentry, science and other subjects. It has proven to be auseful stimulant of pedagogical and content discussion among the educators whoserve as test administrators and scorers. Even more significantly, the CAEP testdesigners have insisted on more than an expert judgment of performances, but onthe explication of criteria for judgment so students and teachers would understandthe expectations.

Moving forvihuatiranti_ard_on_mfronts: A major goal of the state departMent ofeducation was to have districts and schools consider the Common Core as theyrewrote their district goals and objectives -- an undertaking on a five-year cycle.Coherence in the system is also being achieved by attempting to have the CommonCore used by teacher preparation institutions and adult educators as well as theregular K-12 system. Also built into the Common Core policy was the requirementthat the commissioner of education would convene a statewide committee to receivea three-year summary report on implementation and review the Core for possiblerevision.

A year and a half after the development of the Core, it remains to be seen whether theconsortium members will be able to maintain their coherent focus on better learning forall students. Certainly the continuatioa of cross-role dialogues and networks should be akey aspect of any plans for the future, and development of new relationships acrossgroups is a desirable goal.

Among the next steps might be development of a mechanism or process to evaluate theextent to which individuals and groups in the education system are, in fact, using theCore to guide their planning and decision making. Appendix B presents some questionsthat educators throughout the system might use to gather and analyze information abouttheir activities. The answers to these kinds of questions may provide a differentperspective for staff members of schools, districts and other educational institutions toconsider.

32

Appendix A

ieflOre- update

VOL. 4 NO. 3 CONNECTICUT STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION APRIL 1988

COMMON CORE OF LEARNINGCONNECTICUT'S

RESOLVED that the State Board of Educationadopts Connecticut's Common Core of Learningas its standard of ar educated citizen and as itspolicy on the skills, knowledge and attitudes thatare expected of Connecticut's public secondaryschool graduates and directs the Commissioner totake the necess-ry action.

aJ ,-,

Unanimously approve ! January 7, 1987,Abraham Glassman, Chairman of the State Board of Education presiding

This issue of Challenge Update isdevoted to Connecticut's CommonCore of Learning, considered bymany to be one of the most impor-tant developments in education inConnecticut today

The Common Core of Learninghas been called visionary for thegoals it attempts to define and forthe expectations it holds for our stu-dents and for our schools It has alsobeen called straightforward and ex-tremely practical for its insistencethat without standards. without expec-tations, there can be no measure ofsuccess, no accountability, nodirection

Because of the importance of theCommon Core of Learninc, Challenge Update is including the fulltext in this issue so that teachers.administrators and others in the education community and throughoutthe state may become more familiarwith a document which we believewill significantly affect the educationof our children in Connecticut publicschools

We are particularly pleased topublish the views of three deeplycommitted and articulate educators

Connecticut Teacher of theYear-1986. Deborah Gladding Wil-lard. Glastonbury High School, DrE Jean Stepherson. Principal Bas-sick High School, Bridgeport. andDr Robert 0 Minor. Superintend-ent of Schools. East Lyme whowere members of the committeewhich developed the Common Coreof Learning and whose observationsand insights are well worth sharing

F McElaney, Editor

[CONNECTICUT'SCOMMON CORE IF LEARNINGGerald N. Tirozzi, Commissioner of Education

There is a continuous need inpublic education to define more spe-cifically what we expect of our stu-dents and our schools Connecticut'sCommon Core of Learning does thisby establishing a vision of what ouryoung people as a result of theK-12 experience should knowand be able to do The Core shouldserve as a goal for all of us to strivetoward and a standard by which toassess our progress

The State Board of Educationadopted Connecticut's CommonCore of Learning as a document thatdefines "its standard of an educatedcitizen and its poiir, on the skills,knowledge and attitudes that areexpected of Connecticut's publicschool graduates

Connecticut's Common Core ofLearning was designed and devel-oped by a distinguished committeeof Connecticut citizens who metfrom March through December 1986The committee included businessand labor leaders, elementary andsecondary school educators, headsof higher education institutions, thepresidents of the Connecticut Asso-ciation of Boards o -..ducation andParent/Teachers Association, Con-necticut teachers and students Thegroup researched previous nation-al level "core" documents, visitedschools to discuss the Common Corewith teachers and administrators.consulted with a number of state-wide organizations, sought re-sponses to drafts of the document,and conducted a public hearing onits content

The thoughtful, thorough work ofthe committee led by Dr John TCasteen III, president of the Univer-sity of Connecticut, and Dr Badi GFoster, president of the Aetna Insti-tute for Corporate Educationresulted in the Common Core ofLearning.

The Common Core is not a statemandate to local school districts It isa state MODEL that aims to influ-ence local curriculum and instruc-tion. We hope that school districts

will use the Core to enhance schoolimprovement efforts over the nextfew years in the following ways- torevise local goals and student objec-tives, to develop a local commoncore of student outcomes, to reviesvcurriculum and instruction, todevelop professional developmentprograms, to redesign assessmentsof student growth, and to generateschool effectiveness plans Alreadytwenty school districts have agreedto participate in our new CommonCore of Learning Consortium byusing the document in a variety ofways For example, one school dis-trict in the consortium is planning toconcentrate on the Attitudes andAttributes section of the Core andplans to use it to facilitate studentdevelopment of attitudes that fostercontinuous learning

We want to stress, however, thatthe usefulness of the Core is not limited to the education community.alone Connecticut employers, forexample, might well examine theCore and evaluate their existingexpectations of and programs forConnecticut's high school graduatesFor our vision to become a realitywill require the involvement andactions of many I sincerely encour-age your participation in this impor-tant effort

WHY ACOMMONCORE?Deborah Gladding WillardSocial Studies Teacher,Glastonbury High School

Connecticut's Common Core ofLearning, adopted by the Connecti-cut State Board of Education onJanuary 7, 1987, presents a vision,f what Connecticut education can

and should be From the very begin-ning, it was clear that there was tobe just one common core, not sepa-rate ones for each educational sub-group The Common Core establishesgoals that should guide all edu-cational pursuits while, at the sametime, it maintains the flexibility thatallows individual communities to de-termine the particular path to that end.The Common Core seeks to uniteparents, students, educators, andthe community at large in pursuit ofa shared vision a vision of educatedindependent youth, capable ofthinking and acting responsibly

And there is much to be said forpursuing common goals in a societyoften fragmented and factionalizedby a barrage of centrifugal forcesFor in further refining its goals, acommunity defines itselt and createsits dreams It is forced to lookwithin, to decide what a wishes itsfuture to be, and, in educating itsyouth Its legacy is launched For

continued on next page

UNDERSTANDINGSAND

APPUCATIONS

COMMONCORE

OFLEARNING

Illustration designed byJennifer C. Goldberg,

State Solidest Advisory Column

1.3

The Common Core of Learning:A PRINCIPAL'S PERSPECTIVEE. Jean StephensonPrincipal of Bessie.* High School, Bridgeport

In early March 1986, Commissioner Gerald N. Tirozzi establishedthe Common Core of LearningCommittee This blue ribbon com-mittee. representing the busnesscommunity as well as educators, stu-dents and parents. was charged withpreparing a "common core of learn-ing.' that represented the skills.knowledge and attitudes expected ofall Connecticut high school gradu-ates The commite9 had the oppor-tunity to review the "common cores"from many national studies. otherstates and !ocal school systems.

In developing the Common Coreof Learning, the committee wrestledwith the questions 1 What does adiploma from a Connecticut highschool mean? 2 What knowledgeand skills can be expected from agraduate of Connecticut's publicschools? The committee worked formany months to formulate a consen-sus position which defines the skillsand understandings Connecticut'spublic school graduates can reasona-bly be expected to possess

As a high school principal, one ofmy major challenges is to create anenvironment where teachers canteach and students can learn I havealso accepted the challenge to pre-pare students to enter a society thatis complicated and constantly chang-ing Many studies suggest that thereare two Connecticuts. one for theadvantaged and the other for thedisadvantaged As an urban educa-tor, I feel strongly that the CommonCore of Learning will bring us closerto a united Connecticut that willensure equity for all students. It is

from this perspective that I respondto Connecticut's Common Core ofLearning, which establishes a visionof what Connecticut's high schoolgraduates should know and be ableto do.

Moreover, the Common Core ofLearning reflects a commitment tcexcellence in public elementary andsecondary education and to high

expectations of all our students AsCommissioner Tirozzi constantlyreminded members of this commit-tee, "The Common Core of Learn-ing does not represent functionalliteracy or minimal competency

All students, and students enrolledin urban schools in particular, needai overall environment that assiststhem in excelling. Students learnbest when excellence is expected ofthem and when they are encouragedto achieve. They need incentives tolearn and stimulation to learningToday's students will need to bear inmind the effect of their own attitudeson the learning process and on theirschool They will need a sense ofpersonal responsibility for their ownprogress. As high schools devise cur-ricular and instructional approachesto meet these needs, we must alsoprepare students to enter a sotietvthat is complicated and constarchanging Whether students continue their education after gradua-tion from ',lc, school or .joimmediately . nloyment. theyneed to have a solid foundation for aproductive career and fulfilling lifeTo maintain the health of our econ-omy and the ability of individuals toobtain rewarding work, studentsreed more than just the basic skills

minimum requirements forgraduation; they will need the attri-butes and attitudes. skill and compe-tence. understandings and appli-cations all encompassed in the Com-mon Core of Learning

Bridgeport's focus for the 1987-1988 Common Core of Learningpilot addresses the Reasoning andProblem Solving section of the CoreThe Board of Education has estab-lished a study committee under theleadership of William Glass Super-visor of Professional Development,which will focus on the following:

compile and review the latesteducational research on criticaland creative thinking skills

3cd

develop a summary for eachresearch team reviewed Allsummanes will be included in ourprofessional library for ongoingrefetencedevelop a series of recommen-dations and guidelines for thinkingskills instructionprepare a final report to bepresented to the superintendentand Board of Education in thespring of 1988. The report willindicate findings and implemen-tation strategies relative to theareas of critical and creativethinking skills.

The Bndgeport Board of Educa-tion will pilot and monitor the fol-lowing thinking skills projects

English 7-12 Critical ThinkingSkills, Effective QuestioningTechniques, Study SkillsReading/Language Arts K-8Great Books, CollaborativeLearninMathematics Reasoning andProblem Solving StrategiesTraining Pros ramSocial Studies Critical Thinkingin the HumanitiesScience Critical Thinking ar,dProblem AnalysisVisual Arts Creative ProblemSolving, Effective QuestioningTechniques

The results of each pilot projectwill be presented to the CommonCore of Learning Team, whichIncludes representatives of the De-partment of Instruction. elementaryand secondary principals, teacher/curriculum specialists and central

"lice staffSchool reform is very much on

the mind of the nation Over thepast three or four years, studies ofAmerican schools have proliferated.and more are expected over thenext year as we begin to address theever-growing population of 'at risk'

continued on next page

visions ask us whither we would go,and this ability to influence our oudestiny is what distinguishes humansfrom all other creatures And so thecreation of a common core empow-ers all of us to reach for those ends,knowing that some will find the path

t der than others but recognizingthat, in a democratic society rootedin the protection of individual rightsand the promotion of equal opportu-nity, a common set of expectationsis not only useful, but also right

And there is also much to be saidfor the process by which the Com-mon Core is adapted and Imple-mented by Connecticut's schoolsystems. The committee which pre-pared the Common Core was amicrocosm of the communtty atlarge It brought together educators.business people, labor representa-tives, parents, and lastly. the Com-mon Core's clients students Thecommittee's composition is impor-tant not only for what it shows aboutthe importance of process in achiev-ing a goal, but also for what it saysabout the committee's goal Thus.while the adoption and incorpora-tion of the Common Core at thelocal level are goals, so too is thesense of unity of bonding as a

group, that comes from creating mis-sion statements And this. too, is adesirable goal

It, establishing its goals. the Com-mon Core went tvell beyod mini-mum competencies sub'ect to obiec-nee tests and beyond requiring theaddition of specific courses or creditsas requirements for graduation It

also did not create one curriculum tobe taught uniformly throughout Con-necticut Instead, it approached edu-cation holistically. recognizing thatwhat was being ;;ought we:e outcomesof the entire K-12 educational expe-rience and that these outcomes in-cluded a young person's attitudes andpersonal characteristics as well ashis/her traditional academic accom-plishments Thus, the Common Coredefined an educated person as onewho could perform competently notonly in an academic setting, but alsoone who was a reflective, caringindividual in the community.

Individual achievement in theseareas would, most likely, produceindividual rewards But what theCommon Core also points to verystrongly is the fact that the individualis part of a group and that the wholeentity gains strength when the pow-ers of a member are increased Heremany of the resulis are qualitativerather than quantitative, though theyare still observable and measurableAnd for many. the academic andsocial maturation process will contin-ually renew itself long after the indi-vidual has graduated fr Jrn highschool Indeed Melon° learning andpersonal growth are Common Coregoals

The ultimo` purpose of Comb etecut's Common Core of Learning was"to prepare future generations ofcapable and flexible people Fromthe outset, the Common Core aimedtowards the future The CommonCore rests upon a set of philosophi-cal assumptions critical to under-standing the final document Thecommittee strongly believed thatthere is a common set of skillsknowledge and attitudes essentialthe total development of all Conecticut students [that] these tealings have intrinsic value[- id] that these skills, knowledgeand attitudes constitute a set ofexpectations that all students canachieve regardless of diversemg rates and styles

In presenting Connecticut s Com-mon Core. the committee dividedthe core into three general cate-gories Attributes and Attitudes Skillsand Competencies. and Understand-ings and Applications But. as shownin the illustration designed by Jen-nifer Goldberg, a member of theState Student Advisory Council andthe Common Core Committee. thesethree sections are part of a wholeeach dependent upon the other forsupport The committee placed thesection on attributes and attitudesfirst because it believed "A positiveself-image and self-esteem are cru-cial to learning [and that students[must) take responsibility for theirlives Recognizing that the school isnot the sole agency involved in cre-ating attributes and attitudes such as

persistence, intellectual curiosity,and moral and ethical values, thecommittee nevertheless felt that edu-cation could and should foster thegrowth of these preconditions tolearning

Next the committee presentedwhat it believed to be the "core ofbasic or enabling skills and compe-tencies that provide the critical Intel-

_ tual foundations foe broaderacquisition of knowledge Thus.whether one speaks of reading, writ-ing, listening. reasoning problem-solving or quantitative or generallearning skills, it is clear that theseare tools which every person mustpossess to be productive in thetwenty-first century

Lastly, the committee dealt withUnderstandings and Applications Itis here that the individual's attributesand attitudes, skills and competen-cies are applied to what most wouldrecognize as the traditional contentof the curriculum the academic dis-ctpltnes But here the thrust of theCommon Core was rot or le mastery of traditional content areas butalso the recognition of the interrela-tionship betweer and among the dis-ciplines as well as their significan:ein an increasingly complex and inter-dependent world

Thus what the Common Coreaimed to do, both In setting goalsand establishing a process lot ekica-tional evaluation and renewal, wasto successfully marry vision and taskand to invite and unite communities ;to examine themselves and to prot-ect their dreams

Beginning with this issue ChallengeUpdate has been expanded from S to 12pages of text in order to cover more fullyand in greater depth the educationalissues of today

We hope that you will enjoy theexpanded issues. an e welcome yourcomments and suggestions to improvefuture edit. -,ins

Editor

40

youngsters. The myriad studies pub-lisued to date have looked at r,,anyaspects of schooling and have m ler.uerot.0 rec^r".-enrti^ns abouthow schools might be ImprovedThese studies have rerinded us that

urban and 5uburban, play a'nthl role in the life of the country.Schools rrerst prepare our youngpeople for participation in a demo-cratic society ,Ind a productivelife i i general .'dith responsibilitiessuch as these, I view Connecticut'sCommon Core of Learning as avehicle for meeting these clemands\s an urban educator and adminis-

trator, I am concerned about educa-tional quality expressed in ways thata-vance social justice. Educationalquality must not lead to actions thatlimit the aspirations and opportuni-tfls of disadvantaged and minorityyouth or that would reverse theprogress that has already beenmade. Rather, concern for educa-tional quality must be expressed in acommitment to ariality for all stud-ies. I, therefore, ri ew the CommonCore of Learning as criteria fordes.gning educational efforts that willenable more students to succeed inConnecticut The Common Core ofLearning is only a beginning that willchange in response to new demandsand challenges

I salute Commissioner Tirozzi andthe State Board of Education, whichhas at. >pted ene Common Core ofLearning, the 3ridgeport Board ofEducation, which is participating inthe Common Core s pilot. and thebusiness and education communityrepresentatives who served on thiscommittee to improve 'owningopportunities for all students. espe-cially those at risk of educational fail-ure for economical, environmentalor physical factors it was a land-mark in my career to serve on thiscommittee that worked for manymonths to establish a vision of what'nigh school graduates should knowand be able to do in order to achieveall that they can From this perspec-tive, Connecticut's Common Core ofLearning ensures that all studentswill receive an equal educationalopportunity second to none

The Common Core of Learning:A PROGRESS REPORT ON ONESCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSERobert 0. Minor, Superhateod(set of Schools, East Lyme

Educational leaders in me State ofConnecticut are facing another chal-lenge the task of coordinatinglocal curriculum learning outcomes(objectives) to the skills and compe-tencies. understandings and applica-tions, attitudes and attributes foundin the Connecticut Common Core ofLearning

Many local school d stricts mayfind it difficult to make the appropri-ate correlations between their re-spective learning objectives and theCommon Core objectives, due in partto a lack of an appropriate curricu-.im document and/or format which

will lend itself to such a correlationAs a result of timing and coma-dence. the East Lyme public schoolshappily found themselves in a law r-able position to accomplish this nec-essary correlation in a timelyfashion It is my hope that sharingour experience may assist othersthey. too, respond to the Comm(,nCore of Learning f jure I

gram appropriate for the 21st cen-tury We wit' in fact. have elimi-nated aditional curriculum guidesonce the project is completed andwill also have eliminated the need tocompletely rewrite e r curriculum inthe near future

Since the process allows us todatabase all of the information into aspreadsheet format consisting ofrov.is and columns, it was easy for usto insert anothe. column with theheading Common Core of Learninginto the program format With a sub-heading under the Common Corefor each of the Core categories (A/A

."Atitudes and Attributes, S/CSkills and Competencies. U/A -Understandings and Applications).the format allows us to correlate theCommon Core objectives directly toour Intended Learning OutcomesOnce the Common Core informa-tion was placed into a databased for-mat, the task became even more

List of Objectives(Intended Learning Outcome)

Common CoreA/A S/C- U/A

I Children will enjoy literature

II Children will develop strategies for readingexpository matenals

In 1986 our school district began acurriculuin delineation project de-signed to capture the content of allof our school curriculum and to cor-relate that curriculum with other edu-cational variables The process wasdevelcped in a systematic. segmentedand iational manner

There was a need for each schoolto identify what content is beingtaught in order to assess the infor-matior in light of both student needs(for the 21st century) and societaldemands The product of this multi-year task will prc ide a tangible assetthat can be used by all levels of theprofession as we plan a curriculumand accompank,ing i:istructional pro-

D-3

A-2

A-2A-3

A-4A-7

E-1E-3E-7

manageable Rather than rewriteeach Common Core objective in

total, the individual making the correlation needs only to place a letterand number in the appropriate boxunder one of the thee categories inline with the appropriate IntendedLearning Outcome Figure I indrcates how this correlation looksusing a sample of two IntendedLearning Outcomes

Although East Lyme is using adatabased computer program to storethe curriculum data, it is unnec-essary for distr is to do so unlessthey are planning an expanded de-lineation The format is easy to use

continued on page 6

4

Progress Reportcontinued from page 5

And to proparo. What is goarierl firstis a listing of all the objectives taughtin each r-..,urse The objectivesshould be listed sequentially byquarter 110-week period) If yourdistrict is anything like ours, manyobjectives already exist somewherein the district in some format orother If there is no listing of objec-tives, use the objectives usuallynoted in each teacher's lesson plansor, if this is lacking, give the teacherstime to list them at the end of eachschool quar+Pr Do not ask for eso-teric behavior objectives which canturn me staff away from the intentRather ask for concise intendedlearning outcomes and keep the for-mat the same for all courses If sev-eral teachers teach the same course,allow them time to meet in a groupto come up with one series of out-comes for the course

Clearly, everyone wh' contrib-uted to the development of theCommon Core of Learning shouldfeel a sense of accomplishment Yetby itself, this document will notaffect the opportunities, experiencesor achievement of a single Connecti-cut student For this, we must lookto you: our classroom teachers, prin-cipals, district staff, board members,parents and concerned citizens Yourleadership in bringing the CommonCore of Learning to life is vital

We hope this document will beused within your schools and com-munities to promote a new level ofdialoguq about education aboutits purposes and effects.

With your leadership, the Com-mon Core of Learning will help usall face the future with a sense ofrenewed confidence in what we canaccomplish and a renewed determi-nation in what we will accomplish

Badt G FosterPresident, Aetna Institute forCo orate EducationCo-chair, Common Core ofLearning Committee

Once you have a listing ofIntended Learning Outcomes foreach course (we have over 300 sep-arate courses in East Lyme, iruUd-mg Chinese), you are well ahead inyour task What remains is to revisethe Common Core of Learning intoa database outline format and dis-tribute it to all faculty, staff andadministrators

As soon as this is done, spend anhour with your administrators inorder to acclimate them to theat hand and to give them an oppor-tunity to become familiar with theprocess a ,d the content of the Com-mon Core of Learning Subse-quently the administrators shouldmeet w.th their respective faculties toacclimate them also to the processand the Common Core contentOnce this is done, give the teacherstime to correlate the Common Coreobjectives with the Intended Learn-ing Outcomes as shown in FigureYou will be amazed how rapidly thetask is completed Use staff develop-ment days to enable th,s phase tomove even more rapidly Note Ifyou are not computerizing the pro'uct, you might want to atkicr, a corplete list of Common Core objectiv,to each course for easy reference

Once the task is completed y(

are ready to form assessment grouterto look at the courses to ascertainwhether your school program meetsthe standards noted in the Con-,rnonCore of Learning If yoi eet tnosestandards, that's great, if not. youhave to decide whether or not youmodify your curriculum cor-mt todo so and then plan that phase ofchange

The curriculum delineation proc-ess described above is only one facetof the total project we are undertak-ing l believe the process will simplifyyour task in correlating Common Coreof Learning objectives Nil your localcurriculum content. and I invite youto contact us if you have any ques-tion-; on this process or other phasesof -lur project

COMMON CORE OFLEARNING COMMITTEE

John T Casteen III, PresidentThe University of ConnecticutBadi G Foster, President TheAetna Institute for CorporateEducationDallas K Beal. PresidentConnecticut State UniversityJoan Carter, President T and T IncJoseph J CitasuoloSuperintendent ClintonFernando Coinulada V,,:ePresident for Latin American andinternational Division. ConnecticutBank and Trust CoJoseph J Crisco Jr . Director ofGovernmental Affairs. UnitedTechnologies CorporationJennifer C Goldberg. StateStudent Advisory CouncilMarie S Gustin, Superintendent.New BritainLee Hay, 1983 Connecticut andNational Teacher of the Year.ManchesterRaymond Lenoue. PresidentConnecticut Association of Boo-dsof EducationJulia McNamara. President.Albertus Magnus CollegePeg Perillie. President. ParentTeacher Association ofConnecticut IncDavid J Quattropani AssistantSuperintendent NewtownHelen Regan Coordinator.Secondary Teacher CertificationProgram Connecticut CollegeE lean Stepherson Principal.Bassick High school BridgeportBetty Tianti President.Connecticut State AFL-CIODeborah Gladding 1'86Connecticut Teacher of the YearGlastonburyN Patricia Yarborough PresiuentPost College

Ex OfficioNorma Fireinan GlasgowCommissioner of Higher EducationGerald N Tirozzi Commissioner

Contributing Alternate MembersMatt Bates and Barry Williams.Connecticut State AFL-CIOMerle H. is, Department ofHighe EducationDavid Suisman, State StudentAdvisory Council

I CONNECTICUT'SCOMMON CORE ClF LEARNING

INTRODUCTIONThe Common Core has been de-

veloped with an understanding thatstudents begin their schooling at dif-ferent levels of readiness and somehave developmental handicaps aswe It is also acknowledged thatstudents have different interests andaspirations Recognizing these differ-ences. however, does not justify thedevelopment of a different CommonCore for each student To the con-trary, the goal of each student devel-oping to his or her fullest potentialargues for the creation of one Com-mon Core that has the highest ex-pectations for each child

Connecticut's Common Core ofLearning is organized under threemajor headings with subheadingsthat reflect significant groups ofskills, knowledge and attitudes

Attributes and AttitudesSelf-ConceptMotivation and PersistenceResponsibility and Self-RelianceIntellectual CuriosityInterpersonal RelationsSense of CommunityMoral and Ethical Values

Skills and CompetenciesReadingWritingSpeaking. Listening and ViewingQuantitativeReasoning and Problem SolvingLearning Skills

Understandings andApplicationsThe ArtsCareers and VocationsCultures and LanguagesHistory and Social SciencesLiteratureMathematicsPhysical Development and Fle?irtiScience ant. Technology

The order of the three majorheadings does not represent their rel-ative importance It does represent

a logical sequence of assuring efftive learning While schools sharethe development of attitudes and at-tributes with the home and otherinstitutions, it is acknowledged thatstudents learn best when they areappropriately motivated and self-confident Although by-products ofeffective instruction, these attitudesand attributes are also preconditionsfor mastering specific skills, Many ofthe skills and competencies and theattitudes and attributes, while riottaught directly or from a written cur-riculum. are continually developedduring instruction in the traditionalcurriculum areas presented in the sec-tion on understandings and appli-cations

other and one subject area toanother Mdny 1.ems listed under a

part,cular subh2ading could easilyhave been included tinder others

The Common Core is not a curric-ulum Each school district's curricu-lum will be more comprehensive andsignificantly more specific. includinga wide range of learning experiencesand instructional strategies The Com-mon Core is a statement of the stu-dent outcomes expected to resultfrom the entire K-12 school experi-ence It has been developed to influ-ence curriculum by generating dis-cussion and stimulating change inschok.,', programs, student objectivesresource allocations and teaching

Finally, the Common Core of

UNDERSTANDINGSAND

APPLICATIONS

COMMONCORE

OFLEARNING

The Common Core of Learningshould not oe miscorstrued as a setof isolated skills and understandingsTo the contrary. it should be viewedas an integrated and interdependentset of learning outcomes Users ofthe Common Core of Learning shouldcontinually look for cross-disciplinaryand niulti-disciplinary approachesand for the transfer of skills andknowledge from one domain to an-

Learning has been developed neitheras a state mandate nor as a condi-tion for graduation It provides a state-ment of hicj, expectations neededfor all Connecticut students to be-come educated citizens It is alsooffered as a catalyst for schoolimprovement The framers of thisdocument view it as a beginning.one that will change in response tonew demands and challenges

continued on page 8

THE COMMON CORE

Attributes and AttitudesA positive self.image and self-

esteem are crucial to learning Theseattributes determine goals, behaviorsand responses to others. Further-more, people depend on and influ-ence one another Therefore, it is

important that students take respon-s'bility for their lives and set appro-priate goals for themselves In doingso, they deu!lop lifelong attitudes

The family and societal forcesother than schools play major rolesin fostering student growth. andschools c.In provide a supportive cli-mate for that growth While it is

inappropriate for schools to acceptthe sole or even primary responsibil-ity for developing these attributesand attitudes, it i also inappropriateto deny the critical importance ofthese factors as preconditions tolearning, as consequences of theteaching of all disciplines, and asdesired outcomes for all students

Positive Self-ConceptAs part of education in grades K-

12, ea^h student sh, J Id be able toappreciate :us /her worth as aunique and capable individual andexhibit self-esteem;develop a sense of personaleffectiveness and a belief in ths,'her ability to shape his; her future,develop an understanding of his/her strengths and weaknesses andthe abil,ty to maximize strengthsand rectify or compensate forweaknesses

Motivation and PersistenceAs part of education in grades K-

12, each student should be able toexpkrience the pride of accom-

'ishment that results from hardwork and persistence,act through a desire to succeedrather than a fear of failure, whilerecognizing that failure is a part ofeveryone's experience,strive toward and take the risksnecessary for accomplishing tasksand fulfilling personal ambitions

Responsibility and Self-RelianceAs part of education in grades K

12, each student should be able toassume the primary responsibilityfor identifying his/her needs and

setting reasonable goals,initiate actions and assume respon-sibility for the consequences ofthose actions,demonstrate dependability,demonstrate self-control

Intellectual CuriosityAs part of education in grades K-

12, each student should be able todemonstrate a questioningattitude, open-mindedness andcuriosity,demonstrate independence ofthought necessary for leadershipand creativity,pursue lifelong learning

Interpersonal RelationshipsAs part of education in grades K

12. each student should be able todevelop productive and satisfyingrelationships with others basedupon mutual respect,develop a sensitivity to and anunderstanding of the needs,opinions, concerns and customs ofothers.participate actively in reachinggroup decisions,appreciate the roles and re-sponsibilites of parents. childrenand families

Sense of CommunityAs part of education in grades r,

12. each student should be able todevelop a sense of belonging to agroup larger than friends. familyand co-workers,develop an understanding of theimportance of each individual tothe improvement of the quality oflife for all in the community,examine and assess the values,standards and traditions of thecommunity.understand and appreciate his/ herown historical and ethnic heritageas well as that of others repre-sented within the larger community

Moral and Ethical ValuesA' part of education In grades K

12. each student should be able torecocnize the necessity for moraland ethical conduct in a society,recognize that values affect choicesand conflicts.develop personal criteria formaking informed moral judgmentsand ethical decisions

Skills and CompetenciesAll educated citizens must possess

a core of basic or enabling skills andcompetencies that provide the criti-cal intellectual foundations forbroader acquisition of knowledgeThese enabling skills. applied indiverse ways form the heart of anacademic experience as each con-tributes to the development of un-derstanding within and among disci-plines

ReadingAs a result of education in grades

K -12,each student should be able toidentify and .omprehend the mainand subordinate ideas. details andfacts in written work and summar-ize the ideas in his/her ownwords,identify, comprehend and infercomparisons, contrasts, sequencesand conclusions in written work,recognize different purposes andmethods of writing, identify awriter's point of view and tone,and interpret a writer's meaninginferentially as well as literally;set purposes, ask questions andmake predictions prior to andduring reading and draw con-clusions from reading,make critical judgments aboutwritten work including separatingfact from opinion, recognizingpropaganda, stereotypes andstat "ments of bias, recognizinginconsistency ,nd judging thevalidity of evidence Ind sufficiencyof support.vary his/her reao.ng speed andmethod based on the type ofmaterial and the purpose forreading,use the features of books andother reference materials. such astable of contents, preface.introduction. titles and subtitles,index, glossary, appendix andbibliography

WritingAs a result of education in grades

K-12,each student should be ableto

write standard English sentenceswith correct sentence structure,verb forms, punctuation,

continued on next page

4r:-

capitalization, possessives, pluralforms, word choice and Telling,select, organize and relate ideasand develop them in coherentparagraphs;organize sentences and paragraphsinto a variety of forms andproduce writing of an appropriatelength using a variety ofcomposition types;use varying language, information,style and format appropriate to thepurpose and the selectedaudience;conceive ideas and select and usedetailed examples. illustrations,evidence arid logic to develop thetopic;gather information horn primaryand secondary sources; write areport using that information,quote, paranhrase and summarizeaccuratel ,., and cite sourcespropetl-;;improve his or her own writing byrestructuring, correcting errors andrewnting

Speaking, Listening and ViewingAs a ,esult of education in grades

K-12,each student should be ableto.

engage critically and constructivelyin an oral exchange of ideas,ask and answer questions correctlyand concisely,understand spoken instructionsand give spoken instructions toothers,distinguish relevant from irrelevantinformation and the intent fromthe details of an oral message,identify and comprehend the mainand subordinate ideas in speeches,discussions, audio and videopresentations, and report accuratelywhat has been presented,comprehend verbal and nonverbalpresentations at the literal,inferential and evaluative levels,deliver oral presentations using acoherent sequence of thought.clarity of presentation, suitablevocabulary and length, andnonverbal communicationappropriate for the purpose andaudience.

Quantitative SkillsAs a result of education in grades

K-12,each student should be able toadd, subtract, multiply and divideusing whole numbers, decimals,fractions and integers,make and use measurements inboth traditional and metric units tomeasure lengths, areas, volumes,weights, temperatures and times.use ratios, proportions andpercents, powers and roots,understand spatial relationshipsand the basic concepts ofgeometry,

This document sets forth what webelieve ought to be the outcomes ofeducation in the public schoolsMany graduates do not now com-mand all of the Common Core. Webelieve that all or virtually all can ifwe make education itself moreproductive

The Common Core details whatschool graduates ought to know andknow how to do The language isdeliberately simple We do not be-lieve that good education ought tobe mysterious We do believe th.itclear (even ambitious) goals will berefit students, parents. teachers andboard members And we belie.ealso that the Common Core servesboth of our larger goals qualityand equality in ways that areessential to the public interest ineducation

John T Casteen 111President, University ofConnecticutCo-chair, Common Core ofLearning Committee

make estimates and approxi-mations -nd judge thereasonableness of results.understand the basic concepts ofprobability and statistics,organize data into tables. chartsand graphs and read and interpretdata presented in these forms.formulate and solve problems inmathematical terms

Reasoning and Problem SolvingAs a result of education in grades

K-12,each student should be able torecognize and use incluct,ve anddeductive reasoning, recognizefallacies and examine argumentsfrom various points of view,draw reasonable conclusions frominformation found in varioussources and defend his/herconclusions rationally.formulate and test predictions andhypotheses based on approp' latedata,

comprehend, develop and useconcepts and generalizations,identify cause and effectrelationships,identify and formulate problems,

z gather, analyze, synthesize andevaluate information pertinent tothe problem,develop alternative solutions toproblems, weigh relative risks andbenefits, make logical decisionsand verify results,use critical and creative thinkingskills to respond to unanticipatedsituations and recurring problems

Learning SkillsAs a result of education in grades

K-12.ea:h student should be able toset learning goals and prioritiesconsistent with stated objectivesand progress made and allocatethe time necessary to achieve!hem,determine what is needed toaccomplish a task and establishhabits conducive to learningindependently or with others.follow a schedule that acconts forboth short- and long-term projectaccomplishment.locate and use a variety of sourcesof information including print andnon-print materials, computersand other technologies. interviewsand direct observations.read or listen to specificinf ,nation and take effective andefficient notes

Understandings andApplications

Skills and competencies cannot beends in themselves Unless studentshave the knowledge and expert-

continued on page 10

ences needed to apply those learn-trigs and develop a fuller understand-ing of life, their education will beincomplete Schools must thereforeaccept responsibility for leading stu-dents through a body of knowledgeand its application This is whatcomprises the major content of thecurriculum

These understandings and appli-cations have been grouped hersunder the usual disciplines, but it isimportant to recognize the interrela-tionship among the disciplines andto promote students' ability to trans-fer knowledge and applicationsacross subject areas

The Arts: Creative and PerformingAs a result of education in grades

K -12,each student should be able toexpress his/her own conceptsideas and emotions through oneor more of the arts (art, music,drama and dance),appreciate the importance of thearts in expressing and illuminatinghuman experiences,understand that personal beliefsand societal values influence artforms and styles,identifu the materials. processesand tools used in the productionexhibition and public performanceof works of art, music., drama anddance.use and understand languageappropriate to each art form whendiscussing, critiquing ar-1interpreting works in the visualand performing artsidentify significant works andrecognize the aesthetic qualities ofart, music. drama and dance fromdifferent historical periods andcultures

Care ?rs zInd VocationsAs a result of education in grades

K-12,each student should be able todemonstrate positive attitudestoward work, including acceptanceof the necessity of making a livingand an appreciation of the socialvalue and dignity of work,demonstrate attitudes and habits(such as pride in good work-manship, dependability andregular attendance) and theemployability skills and specialized

knowledge that will make theindividual a productive participantin economic life and a contributorto society.

consider the range of occupationsthat will be personally satisfyingand suitable to his/her skills.interests and aptitudes,identify, continue or pursue theeducation and training necessarytor his/her chosen career/vocation,understand personal economicsand its relationship to skillsrequired for employment.promotion and financialindependence..exhibit the interpersonal skillsnecessary for success in theworkplace (such as workingharmoniously as part of a teamand giving and taking direction)

the differences that exist in thestructure of languages.understand and communicate in atleast ()FIE Tanguage III dCICIIIIUTI toEnglish

History and Social SciencesAs a result of education in grades

K-12.each student should be able torecognize and analyze events.personalities, trends and beliefsthat have shaped the history andculture of Connecticut, the UnitedStates and the world,demonstrate a knowledge ofUnited States history andgovernment and understand theduties. responsibilities a tights ofUnited States citizenship,understand the basic concepts ofeconomics.analyze and compare the politicaland economic beliefs and systems

Cultures and LanguagesAs a result of education in grades

K- 12,each student should be able torecognize characteristics commonto all people. su,+1 is physicalattributes ernoti...-ial responses.attitudes, abilities and aspirationsrespect differences among peopleand recognize the pluralistic natureof United States society.demonstrate an understanding ofother cultures and their roles ininternational affairs,analyze the structure of spokenand written language.recognize the commonalit .s and

of the United States with those ofother nationsapply major concepts drawn fromthe disciplines of history and thesocial sciences anthropology.economics, geography, law andgovernment. philosophy politicalscience. psychology and sociology

to hypothetical and realsituations,demonstrate basic knowledge ofworld geography.apply critical thinking skills andknowledge from history and thesocial sciences to the decision-making process and the analysis of

Continued on next page

controversial issues in order tounderstand the present andanticipate the future,understand the roles played byvarious racial, ethnic and religiousgroups in developing the nation'spluralistic society;appreciate the mutual dependenceof all people in the world andunderstand that our lives are partof a global community joined byeconomic, social, cu'+ural and civicconcerns

LiteratureAs a remit of erucation in grades

K-12.ecich student should b, able tounderstand that literature reflectsand illuminates humanexperiences, motives, conflictsand values;understand the essential elementsof poetry, drama, fiction andnon-fiction;understand and appreciateselected literary masterpieces, bothpast and present, that manifestdifferent value systems andphilosophies,recognize symbolism, allegory andmyth,identify literary themes and theirimplications.evaluate selected literary worksand support each evaluation,enjoy reading as a lifelong pursuit

MathematicsAs a result of edurro,on in grades

K-12,each student should be able tounderstand that mathematics is ameans of expressing quantifiableideas,apply mathematical knowledgeand skills to solve a broad array ofquantitative, spatial and analyticalproblems,use mathematical skills andtechniques to complete consumerand job-related tasks.select and use appropriateapproaches and tools for solvingproblems. including mentalcomputation, trial and error, paperand pencil, calculator andcomputer;

use mathematical operations indescribing and analyzing physicaland social phenomena;demonstrate a quantitative senseby using numbers for counting,measuring, comparing, ordering,scaling, locating and coding,apply basic algebraic andgeometric concepts torepresenting, analyzing andsolving problems,use basic statistical concepts codraw conclusions from data

Physical Development and HealthAs a result of education in grades

K-12,each student should be able tounderstand human growth anddevelopment, the functicns of thebody, human sexuality and thelifelong value of physical fitness,plan and implement a physicalfitness program with a variety ofconditioning exercises and/orleisure activities,understand the basic scientificprinciples which apply to humanmovement and physical activities.understand the role physicalactivities play in psychological andsocial develu,...nent,understand and apply the basicelements of proper nutrition,avoidance of substance abuse.prevention cnd treatment ofillness, and management ofemotional stress.recr gnize the need for a safe andhealthy environment, practiceproper safety skills, anddemonstrate a variety of basic life-saving skills

Science and TechnologyAs a result of education in grades

K -12, each student should be able tounderstand and apply the basicprinciples, concepts and languageof biology, chemistry, physics,earth and space science,understand the implications oflimited natural resources. thestudy of ecology and the need forconservation.identify and design techniques forrecognizing and solving problems

in science, including thedevelopment of hypotheses andthe design of experiments to testthem the gathering of data.Presenting them in appropriateformats, and drawing inferencesbased upon the results,use observation and analysis ofsimilarities and differences in thestudy of natural phenomena,demonstrate the ability to workwith laboratory measuring,manipulating and sensing devices.understand the implications ofexicting and emergingtechnologies on cur society andour quality of life, includingpersonal, academic and workenvironments,recognize the potential and thelimitations of science andtech tology in solving societalproblems

COMMON COREPROJECT STAFFCONNECTICUT STATEDEPARTMENT OFEDUCATIONTheodore S Sergi, Manager

Joan B. BaronPeter BehuniakJoan S BriggamanRobert G. HaleSteven LeinwandKenneth LesterMarsha McDonoughCarol Basile and Judith Nosal.Project Secretaries

Special AssistanceBeverly Anderson, EducationCommissioner of the StatesBruce Anderson, DanforthFoundationCarlene O'Connell, Western Orga-nization Consultants IncPat L Cox, The Regional Labora-tory for Educational Improvementof the Northeast and IslandsElizabeth M. Schmitt, ConnecticutState Department of EducationSusan Bucknell and WandaDupuy, Connecticut Office ofPolicy and ManagementMerle Harts, Department ofHigher EducationMarsha J. Howland, Editor

COMMONCORE

OFLEARNING

(9;efloreupdateChallenge Update is a publicationof the Connecticut State Departmentof Education published in partialfulfillment of disseminationrequirements of state and federallaw

Ad Asory Board

Frank A AlfieriLorraine M. AronsonSigmund Abe lesDorothy HeadspethSusan KennedyKenneth Lester

Address all correspondence to.Dr. Francis A. McElaney, EditorState Department of EducationP.O Box 2219Hartford, Connecticut 0614b

APPENDIX B

This appendix provides examples of questions to ask when conducting a study todetermine if a state's education system is focused on the best of learning for all students.

HIGH EXPECTATIONS FOCUSED ON LEARNING AND PERFORMANCE

What is the level of efforts to articulate high outcomes for all students?

Do individuals and organizations seem to be truly focused on high outcomes for allstudents or are they just going through the motions?

Are the outcomes being refined and made more fitting for specific situations? Are moreand more people grasping the meaning of the outcomes and their importance?

Are outcome measures being used that encourage the best teaching practices amongteachers and the best learning approaches among student'?

Are outcome measures being used that neither trivialize certain outcomes noroveremphasize others?

Are outcome measures used that help students and teachers understand the criteria ofexcellence and sufficiency?

Are adults in the system continual learners and do they act in ways that model thebehaviors desired of students? Do they recognize the significance of modeling?

ENCOURAGING COHERENCE

Are we attending to unanticipated consequences?

How are structure and other barriers being removed to enhance implementation ofchanges to focus on student outcomes?

What has changed for students as a result of the implementation? How can we tell ifthey manifest the desired outcomes?

To what extent are new efforts being integrated into organizations versus being treatedas special projects?

Are parts that have previously been unconnected being integrated into a whole?

Is a common language in use by those involved in education developing?

Is awareness of and commitment to the vision expanding?

Are we blending effectively the multiple perspectives into a shared vision?

,1

Does there seem to be a core of well-regarded and capable people who are continuingto refine the best ideas needed in the system?

Do more and more people seem to be developing an awareness of the higher learningfor all students and becoming increasingly committed to it?

Are symbols and ways of talking about the schools being changed to coincide better withthe desired vision':

STIMULATING MOMENTUM

How have participating organizations operationalized the outcomes and taken action toenhance lea' 'ng opportunities for all students? On which aspects have they focused?

What is the level of attention to the full set of student outcomes? Are the outcomesbeing embodied in the full student experience or only in the curriculum?

What roles are central office personnel, building administra,ois and teachers playing inthis effort?

Do the actions being taken involve the total organization or a part of it? Is there a planfor increasing involvement to the total organization?

Is the energy of people still high enough to keep going?

Do energizers -- e.g., harnessing self-interests. compacting tasks, fostering coherence,having a sense of accomplishment -- seem to be working throughout the system to keepthe effort moving forward? Does the energy seem sufficient to meet the next round ofchallenges?

Is action being taken based on desired outcomes for students?

Are people throughout the effort learning to think better?

Are organizations planning for long-term change as well as pursuing short-termobjectives?

Are participating organizations acting out of a sense of compliance or have theyharnessed the statewide focus to their own goals?

What change strategies are participating organizations using to operationalize the CCL?

How are participating organizations keeping attention focused on the effort? Whatincentives have been built in?

PROMOTING SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR QUALITY

Do we know if what we are doing is working? How do we know? How can we tellothers?

What types of assistance do participating organizations need in order to mo,'e forward?

How are rewards and incentives being used to encourage shared responsibility? Areaccountability systems encouraging responsibility at all levels?

Is the leadership and management of the enterprise encouraging shared res;onsibility,coherence and long-term change?

How have relationship among various groups and individuals shifted as a result ofattention to student outcomes?

What types of leadership and management are in place to move the vision forward?

To what extent are role groups and organizations that have not previously workedtogether forging links?

What structures aid mechanisms have the various participating organizations used toincrease the focus on student learning?

What has been the membership composition of teams and committees?

What proportion of a participating organization's staff has been involved in activitiesthat refocus the organization on higher learning for all students?

How have organizations balanced the desire to get as many people involved as possiblewith the need for action?

What have been the benefits and costs of collaboration in different types oforganizations?

What skills have individuals and organizations had to acquire in order to successfullyengage in collaborative activities?

Is empowerment of people at all levels occurring? Who is getting left out?

Are collaborations being built in a way that trust, mutual respect, authenticcommunication and goal-accomplishment exists among partners?