|
On December 9, 2005, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Susan Castillo spoke before the Portland City Club and announced the end of the certificates of initial and advanced mastery (CIM and CAM) as high school graduation requirements. While strongly supporting the reforms that swept the certificates program into Oregon's educational mainstream during the 1991 legislative session, Ms. Castillo cited several reasons "the time has come to move beyond CIM and CAM." Among these were only about one-third of Oregon high school students earn a Certificate of Initial Mastery; that employers or state universities never required it; and students see little value in it. Ms. Castillo stressed the reforms behind CIM and CAM were about reaching high standards and making learning more relevant and that her goal is to take "what works and what doesn't, and build a system that works better for everyone and lifts student achievement."
The officers and board of the Oregon Council for the Social Studies feel this could be a watershed event in Oregon education. So far there has been thoughtful consideration of the proposal to end CIM and CAM and replace them with something else. But what?
Over the next several months, OCSS will be monitoring the situation, providing access to articles, opinions, and opportunities for discussion through the website and OCSS sponsored activities. We invite you to voice your thoughts and ideas on the end of CIM and CAM and what type of program should replace the program.
In addition to the reaction paper from Robert Willner, the Council's Treasurer we add to the discussion three entries from the Oregonian and a statement from Superintendent Susan Castillo. We invite your responses and comments and will print those in the coming months. Please submit your thoughts to Greg Timmons, at gtimmon1@verizon.net or mail to 16004 NE 6th Street, Bellevue, WA 98008.
I. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oregon Education Standards - Now What?
Bob Willner, Treasurer Oregon Council for the Social Studies
A. Premise. Anyone who thinks about our future in a world where we face competition from, say, the top ten percent of 5.75 billion people, has to be concerned with the consequences of accepting mediocrity as a national norm. The danger is not just economic; the challenges we face at home and abroad call for a lot of political and societal decision-making too, which requires that our citizens have a sound base of knowledge and thinking-habits. The "D for Diploma" attitude won't hack it, and we think we have to get moving.
With these needs in mind, it may be wise to give up on the CIM-CAM concept that has never really gained acceptance, provided:
a. that we move quickly to decide what we will expect from our
coming generations, and
b. that we make those expectations firm and clear.
B. Professional Comment. The Superintendent's determination to seek input from the teaching profession is a wise one, provided we make clear that the profession's decision has to be strongly supportive of substantial and effective learning expectations. That may well be the major challenge in this process, because few if any professionals (in any field) are eager to subject themselves to outside judgment on their performance. Educational results are so hard to define, and depend on so many factors beyond the teacher's control, that "pay for performance" creates an extremely risky, and potentially misleading, situation. Yet we, as citizens, seem to be approaching recognition that our future, as individuals and as a nation, depends heavily on our success in educating our successors. How can we best proceed?
One key decision will be to recognize the inevitability of "high stakes assessment" as an intrinsic feature of the world in which we live, and to accept the need to prepare children for that process. And as an esteemed teacher-friend has observed, what learning process is more important than meeting and overcoming failure? So - when we seek input from the teaching profession, it has to be based on acceptance of these stern conditions.
At the same time we must be prepared to emphasize the organic nature of educational processes, which inevitably depend on multiple inputs, uncertain time frames, and a cooperative approach, as the only reasonable approach in this endeavor.
C. Who Are the Opposition? At the same time, we have to face up to the determined negativism of those who - hard as it may be to believe - really seem to want the public education system to fail.
When this statement was offered to the House Education Committee last spring the Chair responded in seeming dismay "How can you say that? These are our children!" But in reality, we need to recognize that the unspoken response of some is in fact "Those are THEIR children! (Who cares?)"
This view was clearly implicit, for example, in the comment of one Oregon legislator a couple of years ago, who opposed the CIM on the grounds that: "My daughter's an honor student and she doesn't need it." What meaning can we find in this statement except the assumption that education is for the elite and the others don't matter?
That is, of course, the principle underlying the widely stratified education systems in many countries where the disparity in quality between public schools and others has long been a significant problem for the society as a whole. It seems based on the assumption that one person's success depends on others failing rather than succeeding. Is that the model we seek? I think not, but it is one of the dangers we face and must acknowledge as we commit ourselves to success (real, not nominal) for all.
D. So what do we do? What would it mean, at least for the interim, to demand that EVERY student meet ALL the CIM standards to receive a high school diploma in Oregon? We recall that when those standards were first adopted, Superintendent Korach, of Lake Oswego, who was then sitting with the State Board of Education, noted that those standards for 10th grade, which he supported, could not then be met by most graduating seniors. Has that condition changed significantly? And is it a function of student capability or student motivation? If, as seems likely the latter is most crucial, wouldn't we all benefit from establishing this clear incentive for all, while leaving in place the higher standards now in effect for the higher-level performers?
II. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Schools chief: Replace mastery certificates" by Steven Carter
Friday, 12/09/2005, The Oregonian
III. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"CIM, RIP" (editorial)
Saturday, 12/10/2005, The Oregonian
IV. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Students survive without CIM" by Bill Graves and Steven Carter
Monday, 12/19/2005, The Oregonian
V. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest Opinion from Superintendent Susan Castillo
from Oregon Social Sciences Teacher Update, January 4, 2006
On December 9th at the Portland City Club, I announced that I believe it is time to turn the page on CIM and CAM, and I'd like to take this opportunity to discuss what I see on the next page.
The CIM and the CAM are parts a visionary education reform bill passed by the 1991 Legislature under the leadership of Norma Paulus and Vera Katz, that included state academic standards, rigorous tests for all students, more early childhood education, a longer school year, and professional-technical education for high school students. Once a student mastered these high standards, they would earn these two certificates, in addition to the diploma.
I have received many emails and calls of support and opposition, and I need to clear up some misinterpretation. Am I recommending that we scrap the entire system that schools and teachers have worked hard to implement? Absolutely not.
As Duncan Wyse, one of the members of the State Board said, "We're not junking the car; we're upgrading to a newer model." I am proposing that we trade in the once-shiny 1991 model we've been driving and get a new fuel-efficient model that fits the 21st century!
Here's what I inherited when I took office:
• When enacted, the Legislature didn't fund CIM and CAM
In nearly every session since 1991, there has been
legislation proposed to eliminate the certificates.
Last session the proposal was not well thought out and
would have done harm to much of the system and it
passed the House and was in play in the Senate until
the final days of the session.
• After 14 years on the books, only about a third of
students have earned the CIM
• No colleges-even our state schools-ask students
about the CIM
• Very few businesses ask applicants if they've
earned a CIM
• The CAM has been postponed repeatedly
The system has become so controversial and complicated that it is difficult to explain it, and I believe we need more clarity in our high school graduation requirements. I've looked at the CIM and the CAM, and the truth lies somewhere in between the advocates and the opponents. There are parts of the current system that are excellent and work very well for students, and there are other parts of the current system that are not.
Here's what I'd like to see:
• Assessment tests at grades 3-8 and once in high school,
probably in 11th grade. The assessment system should
including performance assessments, like essays and math
story problems. Oregon already has an excellent
assessment system in place.
• High expectations and increased graduation requirements.
Students should be required to demonstrate mastery of the
subject matter through tests and application of knowledge
and skills. In order to graduate, every high school
senior should meet or exceed the state benchmarks on the
Oregon state assessment tests.
• High school students should develop a personalized plan to
assist them in choosing classes that will help them work
toward further education, rewarding careers and citizenship.
• I believe that every high school student should complete
a senior project to demonstrate that they
can apply their education to the real world in their own
communities. These are part of the new graduation
requirements already in place.
Working with the State Board of Education, the Oregon Legislature and our partners, we can make progress toward all these goals for the 2007 legislative session. I've visited schools all over the state, and I know that many schools and districts have invested time, money and energy into the current system. No one needs to lose any of that excellent progress. I know that most of what we are currently doing works for students, and it's worth keeping.
We need to concentrate on the big picture of what Oregon students need in order to be successful in the 21st Century. With a meaningful high school diploma, our students will be better prepared to move forward.
Questions? Contact Gene J. Evans, Communications Director
Oregon Department of Education
gene.evans@state.or.us
(503) 378-3600, ext. 2237
|
