Canadian Restructured School
Plan (CRSP)
CRSP is a project of 
Canadian Vocational Association © CVA/ACFP 1998 |
|
Canadian Restructured School
Plan (CRSP)
CRSP is a project of
Canadian Vocational Association © CVA/ACFP 1998 |
Table of Contents
The developers of the Canadian Restructured School Plan (CRSP) believe that the traditional model for the delivery of secondary education in Canada is failing to prepare young people to function effectively in the information/learning age and in the Canadian/global society. The CRSP represents a major restructuring of the traditional high school with its lock-step, teacher-centered, classroom-based delivery system. The alternative delivery model for secondary education known as CRSP was created by bringing together a number of components. Together, the components create a model that is leaner-centered and teacher-managed, personalized, outcome or competency based, and computer managed. The structure allows for flexible entry and exit of students, and the decision making process features site-based management (see Hall, 1993).
The purpose of this paper is to provide a theoretical framework that encompasses the desired components of the model and interprets them in a conceptually meaningful way. The theory of school learning that best fits the CRSP model of schooling is that of Mastery Learning (ML), which provides a vehicle upon which to begin changing belief systems, curriculum organizations, and instructional strategies in schools. The ML theory is coupled with Outcome-Based Education (OBE) for the CRSP model both to provide the accountability system and to serve as a vehicle for reform of the total school system. For the CRP school, ML and OBE are to be designed for an individualized model of curriculum and instruction, rather than the more usual whole class model of mastery learning implementation. All the other elements of the CRSP model (personalized education, computer-based education, etc.) flow from the theory of mastery learning and facilitate the implementation of an individualized version of it.
Carol Barber (1986) uses the analogy of an umbrella to illustrate how OBE, ML, and any number of compatible instructional strategies fit together. She views OBE as the canopy of the umbrella since it creates the curriculum and instructional system that provides the means to achieve the goals of schooling. Other instructional strategies and supporting management structures provide the ribs and radiate from the center pole of ML.
In this paper, mastery learning is discussed first, both because it predates OBE and because OBE was designed to move ML up from the classroom level to the total school system level. The theory of school learning that underlies ML is summarized, and the ML strategy is described. Outcome-based education is then discussed; its philosophy, components, and major features are described. The supporting CRSP components are then discussed. Finally, the implications of the discussions for the Learning Outcomes Project (LOP) are presented. The LOP is Phase III of the CRSP.
(The discussion in this section is extracted from Rayan and Schmidt, 1979, and Ryan, 1994.
In 1968, Benjamin Bloom published a paper about an emerging instructional strategy that he called learning for mastery. At that time, evidence to support the strategy’s usefulness was meager and consisted of small experimental studies conducted by Bloom and his students at the University of Chicago. By 1976, Bloom had amassed findings from national and international studies in 25 nations. His book, Human Characteristics and School Learning, presented a theory to explain individual differences in school learning to determine how such differences may be altered. The book was praised as the most important book in this century because “it can change the ways in which we have traditionally viewed teaching and learning in school” (Harvey & Hotrod, 1977, p. 189). Bloom argued that many individual differences in school learning are man-made and accidental rather than fixed in the individual at the time of conception. His major conclusion was, “What any person in the world can learn, almost all persons can learn if provided with sufficient time and appropriate conditions of learning” (Bloom, 1976).
The philosophy of mastery learning can be traced back to such early educators as Comenius, Pestalozzi and Herbart. The theory that undergirds ML was developed by John Carroll of Harvard (1963). Bloom also borrowed ideas from Washburne (1922) and Morrison (1926). Pioneers in individualized instruction, Washburne is famous for his Winnetka Plan and Morrison for his experiments with curriculum units and teaching strategies.
Today ML has virtually become institutionalized as an educational concept (Burns & Kojimoto, 1989). Programs based on ML ideas and beliefs are in use at all levels of education from the earliest elementary grades to graduate and professional schools (Guskey and Gates, 1986). These programs vary widely in their format. It is instructive to review the theoretical roots of ML rather than focusing only on the ML strategy as implemented in schools.
Theoretical Roots of Mastery Learning
Prior to the 1960s, the prevailing view among educational psychologists was that students’ ability to learn followed a normal curve of distribution. There were good learners and poor learners. Learning ability was regarded as a highly stable or permanent trait of the individual. Thus learning differences found early in students’ school careers would be present through those careers and throughout the remainder of their lives. Acceptance of this construct meant there was little or nothing that schools could do except weed out poorer learners and encourage the good learners. The construct led to streaming practices, grading practices, selective systems of education, guidance practices, and even to careers made available to individuals.
In the late 1960s, a group of educational psychologists began to suggest that students differed in terms of learning styles and learning rates, and not so much in learning ability per se. Thus, innovative programs of individualized instruction were designed and tested. The assumed differences in learning rates led to the introduction of continuous progress rather than age-grading as the basis for school organization.
Carroll’s Model of School Learning
Probably no theoretical treatment of the concept of differences in individual learning rates has received as much attention as that of John Carroll (1963, 1965). Carroll did not question the concept of individual differences in student aptitude for a subject, but he argued that the aptitude was essentially an index of the amount of time a student would require to learn a subject to a given level. It was not indicative of the level to which a student could learn. That is, if each student were allowed the time he/she needed to learn a subject to some criterion level, and if he/she spent the necessary time to do this, then he/she would probably attain that level. The time a student needed could be predicted from an aptitude test. If time to learn were held constant, only a few would learn. If time to learn were individually prescribed, then nearly all would learn, argued Carroll.
Further, Carroll believed that the time spent in learning and the time needed to learn were influenced not only be the characteristics of the student but also by the characteristics of quality of the instruction. From the simple equation:
Carroll went on to elaborate upon the two major variables. “Time Spent” was seen to be determined by two factors: student perseverance and his/her opportunity to learn. The teacher had some control over a students’ opportunity to learn (the classroom time allotted to learning), if not on a student’s perseverance (the time a student was willing to spend actively engaged in learning). Further, the “time a student needed” in order to learn was determined by three factors: a student’s aptitude for the subject, the quality of his/her instruction, and his/her ability to understand the instruction. If the quality of instruction (a factor under the control of the teacher) was low, then the student would have difficulty understanding it and would need much additional learning time. Bloom (1977) noted that it was originally anticipated that slower students might need as much as five times the amount of time required by the faster students.
Carroll’s complete model of school learning can be represented as follows:
The brackets around “Quality of Instruction = Ability to Understand Instruction” were meant to indicate not only their interactive nature, but also that aptitude alone would be the denominator in the equation under ideal instructional conditions. Aptitude itself was seen as determining the time required under such conditions.
Since Carroll assumed that instructional conditions were not typically ideal, either for a class or for individuals in a class, degree of school learning was rarely a function that of student characteristics alone. Indeed, he suggested strongly that individual students needed different kinds of instruction (including time or opportunity to learn, as well as differing instructional modes). Given uniform instruction and time, student aptitude should almost perfectly predict student achievement. If aptitudes were normally destructive, then achievements would likewise be normally distributed:
If, on the other hand, the instruction and the time were adapted to each student’s needs (as predicted by his/her aptitude), the students’ scores would pile up on the high end of an achievement test, and the correlation between aptitude test scores and achievement scores would approximate zero rather than +.75 as they would under uniform instructional conditions.
Five years after Carol’s paper was published, Bloom had transformed the conceptual model into a working model for mastery learning (ML). His logic, according to Block and Burns (1977), was that if aptitude predicted the time a student required to learn but not necessarily the level to which he/she could learn, it should be possible to fix the degree of school learning expected of each student at a single criterion level of mastery performance. Then, if the teacher attended to the variables under his/her control (i.e. “opportunity to learn” and “quality of instruction”), the teacher should be able to ensure that each student attained this level. In other words, Bloom sought to develop an instructional strategy in which individual differences in students’ aptitude for the subject would have little bearing on their final achievement.
The original instructional model was called Learning For Mastery. It allowed educators to use mastery learning strategy in proactive planning with respect to curriculum, instruction, student assessment and teaching. Learning for Mastery has seven major steps (Ryan, 1980):
Pre-planning: write courses or term objectives and summative tests; and define criteria of mastery of the course objectives.
Pre-planning: divide course into instructional units; write unit objectives and unit formative (diagnostic) tests; define or identify criteria of mastery of the unit objectives.
Pre-planning: for each unit, plan initial instruction and initial student activities; plan corrective instruction and activities; plan enrichment instruction and activities.
Teaching and testing: for each unit, teach and involve students in the unit content; give formative test to all students; decide what reteaching is needed.
Reteaching and retesting (if desirable): for each unit, teach and involve students in enrichment activities and in corrective activities (as appropriate); assess progress of students during the corrective process and re-administer a formative test if desirable or appropriate; decide when class will move to the next unit.
New Cycle: begin new cycle of teaching, testing, reteaching and retesting of the next unit.
Summative testing: at the end of the term or course, give a summative test that was written in step 1; evaluate students on the basis of the criteria for mastery.
The original model was designed for teacher-centered, whole-class instruction. If the strategy is to be used in a mode of individualized instruction, as is the plan for the Canadian Restructured School Plan, the above steps would be used in developing the Learner Guides.
Burns and Kojimoto (1989) have produced a very instructive analysis of five key components of a mastery learning approach to education. The summary of the components is taken from their work and should be attributed to their paper. The five key components are: philosophy, curriculum structure, instructional approach, student assessments, and teaching approach.
The starting point for mastery learning is its philosophy that all students can learn a set of reasonable objectives with appropriate instruction and sufficient time to learn. ML promotes high expectations and aspirations for all students. When students are expected to learn and are given time and corrective instruction, they do learn.
Mastery learning requires that the curriculum, or some identified part of it, be taught to mastery. Thus a school or district must decide on the curriculum and justify its importance. Once the curriculum is designated, ML requires that it be segmented into learning units, working documents that collect and organize the best pedagogical knowledge available. Learning units are the building blocks for curriculum in the ML system.
Curriculum structure refers to the specification of the learning units and their sequence during the school year. Experience has shown that a workable learning unit is between two and four weeks in length, with shorter units for elementary grades and longer ones for secondary grades. A year’s worth of curriculum in a subject consists of about 10 to 15 learning units. For each learning unit, teachers must specify a learning objective, a broad yet measurable statement of what students are expected to know or be able to do after instruction. Teachers must also decide how to assess learning of the unit objective.
Developing learning units encourages teachers to think about how to structure learning over longer periods of instructional time--months and years--rather than week to week. It also challenges teacher to: identify learning prerequisites necessary for students to achieve each unit’s objective, outline a sequence of lessons designed to help students attain the unit objective, and organize materials that are available to teach each unit’s objectives. Mastery of specific lesson objectives is important only in so far as it contributes to mastery of the broader unit objective.
The core of the mastery learning strategy is its third component, the instructional model. The model is a template that specifies how daily lessons fit into the learning unit and are organized over time. The Block and Anderson (1975) version has four components: regular instruction, a formative test, corrective or enrichment instruction, and a second formative test. Since there are 10 to 15 units per year, this sequence is repeated 10 to 15 times. At the end of the term or year, a summative test is given. Theoretically, only the summative test is used to assess student achievement in the course.
Notice that the model does not prescribe or dictate teaching approaches to any of the lessons. Teachers are free to do what they do best--develop creative and involving activities and lessons for students. However, ML does prescribe that teachers use a non-graded formative assessment at some time during the latter part of a unit, and that teachers provide corrective instruction for students who require extra help in order to demonstrate mastery of the unit objective.
The fourth component of ML, student assessments, is critical to its success. It is through assessments that teachers diagnose learning difficulties and prescribe corrective activities.
Assessment in ML does not have to be limited to paper and pencil tests. Work product or even activities may be more appropriate ways to demonstrate mastery of particular learning objectives. For example, for a language arts unit on writing a personal narrative, a student’s draft could serve as the formative assessment and the final version as the second. The important factor is for the assessment to be specific enough to help teachers prescribe corrective instruction where needed.
In ML, standards are public statements of what teachers expect from students on each unit. Standards may be either a percentage score on a test or assignment or criteria used be a teacher to judge a work product.
In ML the curriculum, instruction and tests are aligned, which means that the programs consciously strive to match what is taught with what is desired to be taught, and to match what is tested with what is actually taught. Knowing in advance the desired outcomes of two to four weeks of instruction compels teachers to be more purposeful about their teaching. Teacher thinking is focused on what they want students to have learned at the end of the unit or units of instruction. Activities are chosen not because they are “good” ones that maintain student involvement but because they help students achieve the unit’s objectives.
The teaching approaches used to teach daily lessons are not technically an ML component, but Burns and Kojimoto (1989) point out that most staff development programs in ML incorporate techniques drawn from the effective teaching literature (e.g. direct instruction, classroom management skills, mastery teaching, cooperative learning, learning styles, right-left brain activities.) Mastery learning is not itself a teaching model; it suggests how to organize and structure large blocks of learning time, but it leaves to teachers decisions about day to day techniques and activities. Thus, a variety of teaching models can be used with ML. Virtually any set of teaching practices could be organized over time by the mastery instructional model.
By the early 1980s, mastery learning ideas and practices are at the for-front of contemporary educational theory (Block, Efthim & Burns, 1989). However, the ML ideas ran into the national school reform movement of the 1980s--a movement focused on accountability and on reform at the district level. Mastery learning had been developed as a means of improving classroom instruction, and ML consultants had been advising teachers to “start small.” Now the challenge was to expand successfully mastery learning programs at the district level. Although the theoretical roots and the philosophy of ML were still very much at the heart of the reform programs, attention shifted to student learning at the time of leaving the school system.
The term outcome-based education (OBE) was coined to describe an approach for districts seeking to expand their vision beyond existing subject area content in defining performance objectives and criteria to addressing higher-order competencies that cut across curricular subjects. OBE was devoted to addressing the question: What is most essential for out students to know, be able to do, and be like in order to be successful once they graduated?
OBE school districts give priority to higher-level competencies, such as critical thinking, effective communication, technological applications, and complex problem solving. These kinds of outcomes may be called ultimate outcomes or graduation outcomes or graduation learning. They provide the driving force for defining curriculum outcomes which in turn may be called course exit outcomes. Broadly-stated curriculum outcomes may then be broken down into behavioral objectives or what might be called enabling outcomes.
Spady’s definition of an outcome is a successful demonstration of learning that occurs at the culminating point of a set of learning experiences. The term culminating refers to the completion point of a segment of curriculum--what students are ultimately able to do at the end, once all formal instruction is over and can be synthesized and applied successfully (Spady & Marshall, 1991). The ultimate outcomes become the starting point for curriculum and instruction design; educators are to “design down from the ultimate outcomes.
Outcome-based education is rooted in two systematic approaches to instruction and assessment: mastery learning and competency-based education (Burns, 1987). We have already defined mastery learning. Competency-based education is a general term applied to instructional and assessment efforts aimed at defining and evaluating student performance; it is essential an administratively imposed system of certifying that students have demonstrated attainment of a set of defined competencies (see Mitchell & Spady, 1978; Spady, 1977, 1978; Spady & Mitchell, 1977, Ryan & Schmidt, 1979).
The Final Report of Phase 2 of the Canadian Reorganized School Plan (Hall, 1993) used the terms outcome-based education and competency-based education interchangeably. However, there are differences between the two systems that should be recognized. The two systems are quite compatible but not identical. CBE makes no assumptions about the proportion of students who can attain the competencies. Without benefit of an altered instructional system, CBE’s philosophy of success for all and its requirement for supportive curriculum and instruction systems based on mastery learning ideas go far beyond CBE.
Stated differently, CBE can be implemented by developing sets of specific learning outcomes and establishing ways to evaluate student acquisition of the defined competencies. OBE can only be implemented if the process of instruction is changed so that nearly all students can acquire and demonstrate defined competencies. This brings one’s attention to the two roots of OBE: CBE and ML.
The power of the OBE movement still derives from the original mastery learning ideas (Hazelip, 1993). The shift to outcomes addresses some organizational imperatives; the educational system allocating resources to classrooms must have its goals aligned to those of the classroom. As Hazelip noted, it makes sense for the classroom to align its efforts with a set of district-wide goals (the concept of design down). It is less sensible for a district to try to integrate consistency from multiple individual classrooms.
All OBE programs share two fundamental principles: (1) that instructional practice is designed around clearly defined outcomes that all students must demonstrate; and (2) that schools must provide the opportunity for all students to reach the learning outcomes (Spady, Filby, & Burns, 1986). This means that OBE programs have organizational arrangements that give teachers flexibility in making instructional decisions regarding use of time, grouping arrangements, teaching methods, and materials. The two principles enable OBE programs to match closely the student and curriculum (Burns, 1987).
There are five operational components of OBE, according to Spady (1985). Operationally OBE means:
Using clearly defined outcomes for all students:
To define and develop curriculum content, structure and articulation.
To establish criterion-referenced measures of student and program success.
To establish record-keeping and reporting systems for students progress.
Organizing instructional delivery based on the performance capabilities and learning needs of students.
Adjusting instructional time and learning opportunities to enable all students to reach outcome goals successfully.
Formally acknowledging and documenting student learning and success whenever they occur.
Modifying the instructional program on the basis of documented student learning results and available data on instructional effectiveness.
Together the philosophy, instructional strategy, and instructional management system produce an OBE instructional program. The discussion of these three components is excerpted from Burns, Spady, & Filby (1986) and reproduced in Block, Efthim, & Burns (1989).
Philosophy (definition and commitment to success). Advocates of OBE believe that: (a) All students can learn and succeed; (b) Success breeds success; and (c) School control and conditions of success. OBE philosophy states that instruction can be organized so that virtually all students can learn the information, concepts, and skills embodied in the curriculum and have their learning outcomes formally recognized and reported.
Instructional strategy (capacity to deliver quality instruction). OBE instructional strategies are long-term plans for organizing, presenting, and monitoring instruction in classrooms. OBE strategies systematize instructional delivery by aligning three components:
Curriculum component: The instructional strategy revolves around a curriculum component that consists of: (1) goals and objectives for courses or programs of study; (2) standards of student performance which directly embody the goals and objectives; and (3) curricular materials sequenced in a logical fashion to support attainment of the outcome goals.
Instructional component: The instructional strategy uses a delivery system based on mastery learning ideas which (1) divides the curriculum into “units of instruction” that are tied directly to learning goals; (3) adjusts the time needed for instruction based on student goal performance; and (4) uses some form of feedback and correction for students who do not attain the mastery standard established for the unit or instruction.
Assessment component: The instructional strategy uses an assessment system capable of providing evidence of student attainment or non-attainment of the mastery standard established for a unit or program of instruction. The assessment component must be able to provide the data base for correcting student learning deficiencies when necessary, making informal instructional decisions about student progress in reaching instructional goals, and recording and reporting initial and improved levels of performance.
Instructional management (school organization and coordination). To implement the philosophy and instructional strategy at the school level requires an instructional management system. Since instructional management systems vary, there are different OBE instructional programs. Typically, the type of management system used provides the basis for the particular label of name used for the instructional program or “model.” There are two major components to the management system:
Grouping management component: the grouping management component refers to how students are organized for instruction and advancement on both a short-term and long-term basis. This may involve between-classroom groupings or within-classroom grouping or both. The three major grouping strategies used by OBE practitioners are whole class, flexible skill-regrouping, and continuous progress.
Information management component: the information management component to how student information is gathered, recorded, used, and distributed among school personnel and students. Relevant areas of required information management include grouping assignments, daily task assignments, formative evaluation results, unit certification, course grading, program evaluation and grade-level promotion.
Support Requirements. Schools require resource support from the district and state (province) in order to select OBE programs appropriate to their needs, develop new procedures, acquire new skills, and conduct a coordinated OBE instructional program. The specific kinds of support required depend on the instructional program selected and are directly related to the three components of the instructional strategy and the two components of the instructional management system outlined above.
Curriculum support: All OBE models require curriculum development work. Schools need support in the definition of outcome goals, development of objectives, establishment of standards, and the design, development , and procurement of materials to teach those objectives.
Instructional support: All OBE models are based on mastery learning principles. Teachers require in-service training in the use of this classroom pedagogy and ways to group students and organize and use instructional time to enhance both teacher and student success.
Assessment support: All OBE models are grounded in concerns for student learning. Consequently, the instructional programs require a strong assessment component to provide the necessary information for informed instructional decisions regarding student placement and advancement.
Grouping management support: Depending on the OBE model implemented, schools may require support in the coordination and organization of students for instruction.
Information management support: Depending on the OBE model implemented, schools may require support in managing the flow of information between school personnel and students.
Ribs of the CRSP Umbrella: Instructional And Management Strategies/Systems
The discussion in this section is excerpted from The Final Report for CRSP (Hall, 1993), and from Crawford and Crawford, 1994.
The discussion above outlined various kinds of support strategies and systems needed for implementation, depending upon the particular OBE model desired. The Canadian Restructured School Plan calls for the OBE model that is personalized and computer-based, with flexible structures for entry and exit, and with site-based management in place. Each of these four strategies/systems will be described now.
Personalized education is any systematic effort to accommodate individual student characteristics through organizing the instructional or learning environments (Keefe, 1984). In practice, personalized education may take many forms. In the CRSP model, personalization is built around three strategies:
Non-graded Instruction: Non-graded instruction is primarily a grouping practice which arranges students in groups on the basis of interest, needs, and performance levels. Groups may vary in size and composition over any given time. The arrangement facilitates large and small group instruction as well as team teaching.
Continuous Progress: Continuous progress is scheduling strategy. It is a way of organizing the school program to facilitate individual movement of students through the various courses and programs of the school more or less at their own rate. It requires that students have the opportunity to challenge for credit, to take tests and complete courses and/or programs on the basis of the readiness to do so rather than on the school’s timetable.
Individualized Instruction: Individualized instruction refers to instructional methodologies which permit students to study, learn, take tests and exams and proceed at their own pace. The strategies usually require an array of logistical, curricular, staffing and management procedures that focus instructional activity/events on individual students rather than on groups (classes) of students. Typically individualized instruction is facilitated by the use of multimedia self-study materials to which students are directed. The resource alternatives are as varied as the school staff are able to make them. They could include audio, video, tactile, kinaesthetic (games, trips, interviews, realistic experiences, etc.), and/or computer-controlled material. Students are directed to the learning resources via learner guides which provide specific out-lines of objectives, tasks or activities, resources (human and non-human), and self tests, diagnostic tests and/or achievement tests. Students use the resources of their choice to complete objectives or tasks.
Central to the CRSP personalized education process is the assignment of an adult supervisor/mentor to each student. Each teacher will serve as an advisor/counselor to a small group of around 15 students. The student learning plans and activities will be jointly prepared by the student and teacher. A climate of caring and co-operation is essential. Furthermore, teachers must be willing to move from the paradigm of lecture-based teaching to one in which they serve as catalysts and facilitators of student-based learning.
Finally, it is important to note that individualized instruction does not mean that students will be isolated or that they will learn in isolation. Group-based activity, however will be based on the needs of the students and meeting curriculum requirements rather than on arbitrary arrangements based on age or convenience of schedules.
Computer communications technologies provide the essential platform for the proposed restructuring of instructional, administrative and communications environments of CRSP schools. These technology platforms enable the integration of existing and planned administrative, library and instructional systems at the school level and facilitate networking at district, provincial, interprovincial and global levels.
Computer-based education in the CRSP model has two major functions: to serve as a vehicle to deliver instruction and to serve as a vehicle to manage instruction. The delivery function may be called Computer Assisted Instruction; the management function may be called Computer-Managed Instruction.
Computer Assisted Instruction may be developed to provide: lessons, tutorials, drill and practice, test, simulations, games, and problem solving episodes. The main features of Computer-Managed Instruction are: keeping extensive records, identifying student weaknesses, prescribing remedial material, integrating diverse learning media, and scheduling learning activities.
Flexible Structures for Entry and Exit
The CRSP model will address the changing needs of young people to come in and out of the schools freely in order to accommodate their needs to work part-time, engage in special interests (e.g. athletics, the performing arts), and to make schools more like the increasingly flexible world of work. Further, in order to help make school more attractive to some “at risk” students--those more likely to drop out of school--altering the scheduling patterns might help. Shaman (1990) found that the strongest causes for dropping out were school-related reasons. These out-weighed work-related reasons, which in turn outweighed personal reasons. The study found that, when the school schedule was loosened up by moving to semestering, a positive effect on school retention rates was realized. The CRSP model will move in this direction, for example by considering a 12-month school year or four terms with more flexible hours of operation from 8 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. and with continuous entry and exit. In short, CRSP schools will attempt to adopt a flexible school day, flexible school year, and flexible school schedule, flexible access to facilities, and a flat organization.
School-based or site-based management is a way to restructure decision making and planning at the local level to enhance day-to-day collaboration between and among administration and teaching staff. It has been found that, in unusually effective schools, a high degree of interaction occurs among teachers (Little, 1981). The CRSP model is designed to facilitate such interaction. School site management will be encouraged by the CRSP model by building on three critical components (see Conley and Bacharach, 1990):
a strategic plan for decentralizing resource developed by participating staff;
a decision making structure allowing teachers to identify problems and resources needed to solve them; and
holding principals accountable for decisions regarding how resources are to be allocated within their schools.
Site-based management may be enhanced by the use of an advisory council with representatives from parents, business and industry. This provides useful community linkages in the identification of desired student competencies, for co-operative work experience programs, and to assist students in making the transition from high school to work or to post-secondary education.
In summary, the Canadian Restructured School Plan is based on: stress on results and outcomes, mastery learning approach to curriculum and instruction planning, focus on personal and individualized learning, use of computer technology to support the system, flexibility in school organization and scheduling, and site-based management of learning. The Learning Outcomes Project is a first stage in trying out the overall CRSP (Henchey, 1996).The LOP involves two phases. The development phase involves: selecting a small number of secondary schools; identifying learning outcomes for selected curriculum areas; preparing learner guides and assessment materials for these areas; establishing a network of people skilled in developing learner guides; and disseminating information about learning outcomes. The research phase requires the development of a research framework for further phases of the overall CRSP approach (Henchey, 1996).
The discussions of OBE in this paper provide the conceptual background for the work in LOP requiring the identification of expected outcomes for a number of curriculum areas. However, a further distinction needs to be made between outcomes at different levels of a school system. Hall, in a meeting of the CRSP Steering Committee in 1995, presented the following Hierarchy of Goals:
Ultimate goals are usually non-curriculum specific; they state the expected outcomes for all students at the time of graduation. The other three levels of outcomes are relevant to particular curriculum areas and courses. Course exit outcomes are general; enabling outcomes are components of the general course exit outcomes. The performance objectives included in leaner guides identify the particular skills and competencies that together make up the general and specific curriculum outcomes. The LOP will be most concerned with general and specific curriculum outcomes (levels 2 and 3), which may in fact already be prescribed for school districts by provincial departments of education, and with the Performance Objectives (level 4) that will go into the development of learner guides.
Mastery learning theory and strategy should underlie the development of learner guides during the LOP. Learner guides are materials prepared directly for the learner and the teacher, which the student can use to find out the objectives of a course and its units, how the course or unit fits into a larger learning program, the outcomes expected, the structure and assumptions of the content to be learned, suggested learning activities, the resources available, and the method of assessing achievement. There should be built-in corrective learning activities since the corrective phase is the heart of a mastery learning instructional approach. Normally Students can use the learner guides to proceed through a program at their own pace, with guidance from a teacher and often in collaboration with other learners. Teachers and learners use the same guides. The teacher serves as adviser to the student and “tracks” his/her learning, need for corrective activities, and performance on assessment tasks. As much as possible, learner guides will be prepared with a view to having learners use electronic networks and multimedia resources.
REFERENCES