Educators Urge Proof Of Learning

January 25, 1985|By Jean Latz Griffin, Education writer.

LOCAL SCHOOLS would be required to prove what students have learned, rather than tell how many courses they have taken, under a proposal approved Thursday by the Illinois State Board of Education.

``Employers assume that students have certain skills when they graduate from high school and, too often, their assumptions aren`t true,`` said Ted Sanders, the state`s new school superintendent.

``This would make schools specify explicitly what students will learn from a course and make sure they learn it.``

Also Thursday the state board approved a reduction in the ``non-academic`` duties that schools are required to fulfill under state law.

THE RECOMMENDATIONS, which will be considered with other school reform proposals in the legislature`s spring session, will face opposition from the state`s two teacher unions.

The unions, the Illinois Education Association and the Illinois Federation of Teachers, are on record as opposing the elimination of state laws requiring that students take a set number of courses in specific subjects. The union opposition is based on the fear that teaching positions would be lost if students weren`t required to take all the mandated courses.

Proposals to drop such requirements run against the trend of school reform in other states. In the two years since a national commission criticized education, 35 states have increased the number and types of courses students must take to graduate.

However, some of those earlier reforms have been criticized by some educators as ``quick-fix`` strategies that do little to upgrade education.

SANDERS SAID Thursday that such strategies gave the illusion of reform but accomplished little. He called the state board`s plan ``philosophically more in keeping with true reform.``

The proposed changes would affect curriculum and teacher preparation. They represent two of the three major components of the board`s legislative package for the General Assembly`s next session, in which education reform and funding have high priority.

The final segment, a recommended change in how state money is allocated to school districts, is being revised at Sanders` direction and is expected to be considered by the state board in February.

Earlier the board had proposed an allocation plan that would tie school fuinding to how much it costs a district to educate students.

THAT PLAN, which was not included in Thursday`s proposal, would have given more money to school districts, such as Chicago, that have many disadvantaged children, and less money to wealthier suburban districts, which opposed the method.

The 17-member state board is appointed by the governor, hires a superintendent, develops broad policies for the state`s schools, presents a budget and recommends legislation to the General Assembly. It has been developing its three-pronged reform proposal on school finance, teacher training and curriculum for two years.

The state board has had a poor batting average in persuading lawmakers to enact its suggestions. Sanders was reportedly chosen as the new superintendent to replace Donald Gill because he is considered knowledgeable about the politics of education.

The Illinois Association of School Boards pointed out that because an appointed superintendent and board lack a constituency, they have little clout and must build alliances with more powerful groups to see their ideas become law.

THE MOST important of the board`s proposals Thursday was the replacement of the ``hodge-podge`` of state requirements with statements of what students should know and be able to do by the time they finish high school.

State law requires several courses. Some are academic, such as English and science, but many reflect the concerns of groups over the years. Illinois students must take driver education and consumer education to graduate.

Teachers also are required by state law to teach ``honesty, kindness, justice and moral courage.``

The rules have been criticized for reaching beyond the primary focus of schools and for failing to mention what should be learned in required courses. Courses vary even within a school, and some students graduate from high school after taking only grade-school level courses.

THE PROPOSED change would require local districts to develop a list of skills and knowledge, test students on those skills and publicize the results. Schools would have to develop programs to bring students who did not meet the standards up to par.

The changes would also raise the age at which students could drop out of school to 18 from 16, and all schools would be required to develop programs to combat chronic truancy.

School districts would be required to evaluate teachers, and teachers would have to take continuing education courses to keep their certification.

Children would no longer be required to have physical exams to enter 5th and 9th grades, but the requirement that students have proof of immunizations when they enter school would be retained.

DRIVER EDUCATION would become optional. Physical education for juniors and seniors and athletes would become optional.

Schools that continue to offer driver education could teach it directly or contract with driving schools. Fees could be charged, but students could not be denied the courses because of inability to pay.

To graduate, students would be required to have knowledge and skills in language arts, math, science, social studies, fine arts, physical development and physical education.