Table of Contents

1. Introduction
2. Collaborative Curriculum Development and Achievement Studies
   1. International Cooperation
   2. Pan-Canadian Cooperation
   3. Interprovincial Cooperation
3. Definitions of Student Learning Outcomes
   1. Qualifiers Added to Definitions of Learning Outcomes
   2. Distinctions between Graduation Outcomes and Curriculum Outcomes
4. Provincial Expectations for Outcome-based Curriculum and Instruction
   1. Graduation Outcomes
      1. Implications for the Learning Outcomes Project
   2. Curriculum Outcomes
      1. Implications for the Learning Outcomes Project
5. Provincial Requirements or Guidelines for Student Assessment
   1. Implications for the Learning Outcomes Project

1. Introduction

   The Learning Outcomes Project (LOP) is the first major stage of the Canadian Restructured School Plan (CRSP). The major purposes of the LOP are to provide assistance to a small number of selected secondary schools in identifying student learning outcomes and preparing learner guides and assessment materials appropriate to these outcomes. The identification and development work are to be focused on a number of curriculum areas.

   The work within local school sites will not take place in a vacuum. Rather, it will be affected by what is already happening within and across Canadian jurisdictions. Of major relevance to participating school systems are outcome statements and curriculum guidelines produced and/or endorsed at the provincial level.

   The purposes of this paper are:

   1. to provide a contextual overview of what is happening in Canada with regard to outcome-based curriculum development and assessment and
   2. to suggest some of the implications of this context for the LOP school sites.

   Following a brief section on the collaboration taking place at international, national and inter-provincial levels, variations in the definitions of learning outcomes are described. Attention then turns to outcome statements that serve as provincial expectations or requirements for curriculum and instruction at the school level. Examples are provided of the most general kind of outcomes (graduation outcomes or common learning expectations) and of curriculum outcomes, both general and specific. As well, examples are presented of provincial guidelines or requirements for student assessments. Some implications of these discussions for the LOP are suggested.

   It is intended that the schools selected to participate in the LOP have not already begun to implement an outcome-based philosophy. The paper’s appendix provides a brief summary of a survey of Canadian school jurisdictions to help identify secondary schools that are beginning to implement an outcome-based system. These schools may be able to provide assistance or sample materials to the schools selected for the LOP.

    

2. Collaborative Curriculum Development and Achievement Studies

   Cooperation and collaboration in curriculum development and achievement assessments are taking place at international, national and interprovincial levels.

   1. International Cooperation

      Several Canadian provinces have taken part in various international studies of school achievement. Collectively, provinces have participated in the International Education Indicators Program of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Individually, provinces have participated in achievement studies conducted through the International Assessment of Educational Progress (IAEP) and by the International Association for the Evaluation of Education Achievement (IEA).
       

   2. Pan-Canadian Cooperation

      Through the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC), exploratory efforts are underway to develop common outcomes frameworks and assessment strategies in mutually -agreed-to curriculum areas. The assessment development is occurring through the School Achievement Indicators Projects (SAIP) and the joint CMEC and Statistics Canada Pan-Canadian Education Indicators Program (PCEIP).
       

   3. Interprovincial Cooperation

      Currently, there are two major interprovincial initiatives to develop common curriculum, one in the Atlantic Provinces and one in the Western Provinces and the Territories. In Atlantic Canada, cooperating provinces have identified a set of Essential Graduation Learnings that describe the knowledge, skills and attitudes that are expected of all graduating students. From these learnings, the Atlantic provinces have developed Curriculum Outcomes for three areas of study: language arts, mathematics and sciences. The western provinces and the territories have established a number of working groups for various curriculum projects. A Common Framework of Mathematics was released in June of 1995 and it includes both general and specific outcomes.

       

3. Definitions of Student Learning Outcomes

   Across Canadian jurisdictions, curriculum development is focused increasingly on student learning outcomes. There is no universal definition of learning outcomes. However, most definitions state expectations from three domains of learning: cognitive, affective and psychomotor. The first domain reflects cognitive understandings and emphasizes the acquisition of skills, strategies and processes that focus on knowledge, understanding and thinking. The second domain reflects affective learnings such as interests, attitudes, values and appreciation. The psychomotor domain primarily focuses on motor, manipulative and skill development.

   Although the particular words used in the definition may differ from place to place, a typical definition is:

   • Outcome statements identify the knowledge, skills and attitudes that students are expected to acquire.

   The same expectations may be stated in this definition:

   • Outcome statements identify what students are expected to know, be able to do, and be like.

   Because there has been some controversy about the inclusion of outcomes from the affective domain, some definitions are limited to knowledge and skills.

   1. Qualifiers Added to Definitions of Learning Outcomes

      The major differences in outcomes definitions are in the qualifiers or limiting elements added to the expectations for student learning. These qualifiers are added to guide curriculum development. The most common types of qualifiers are described below.

      1. Outcome statements may differ in terms of when the expectations are expected to be met: at the end of a course; at the end of a grade level; at particular key stages such as at the end of grades 3, 6, 9 and 12; or by the end of high school.
      2. Outcome statements may be written to identify expectations that cut across school curriculum (e.g. graduation outcomes) or they may be curriculum-specific (e.g. curriculum outcomes). They may be written for integrated curriculum.
      3. Outcome statements may be general or specific. Typically, the specific outcomes are written to contribute to the attainment of general outcomes. For example, an education jurisdiction may develop general curriculum outcomes and specific outcomes for particular grade levels relevant to that curriculum.
      4. Outcome statements may differ in the extent to which they are intended to be indirectly or directly measurable or observable. For example, statements of broad graduation outcomes or learnings may be assessed indirectly by using assessments of more specific curriculum outcomes as proxy measures. Whatever the intention is, there must be some stated expectation for measurement or observation of student performance if the outcomes are to have meaning and steer the learning process.
          
   2. Distinctions between Graduation Outcomes and Curriculum Outcomes

      There are two major kinds of outcome statements: graduation outcomes and curriculum outcomes. Conceptually, these may be called ultimate exit outcomes and enabling outcomes; attainment of the curriculum outcomes enables a student to demonstrate the knowledge, skills and attitudes expected of him or her by the time of high school graduation. Good definitions of the two kinds of outcome statements were written by the Atlantic provinces to guide their work in developing common core curriculum frameworks. The Atlantic Canada definitions are:

      Essential Graduation Learnings are statements describing the knowledge, skills and attitudes expected of all students who graduate from high school. These learnings describe expectations that are cross-curricular and confirm that students need to make connections and develop abilities across subject boundaries if they are to be prepared for the demands of life, work and study today and in the future. The Essential Graduation Learnings are the framework for curriculum development since all subject areas must help students achieve them.

      Curriculum Outcomes articulate what students are expected to know and be able to do in particular subject areas. They also describe the knowledge, skills and attitudes students are expected to demonstrate at the end of certain key stages in their education as a result of their cumulative learning experiences at each grade level. Through the achievement of curriculum outcomes, students demonstrate the Essential Graduation Learnings.

      Graduation outcomes are called Common Essential Learnings in some of the western provinces of Canada. This same expression may be used, however for what may be called General Outcomes that are curriculum-specific.

       

4. Provincial Expectations for Outcome-based Curriculum and Instruction

   Curriculum expectations, requirements and guidelines are the jurisdiction of the provinces in Canada and are typically developed under the leadership of provincial departments or ministries of education. Provinces also have the responsibility for determining graduation requirements, the length of the school year, and other important policy matters.

   Currently, many Canadian provincial departments of education are in the process of revising their curriculum requirements and guidelines to reflect an outcome-based or results-based philosophy. Provinces may elect to adopt outcome statements and curriculum frameworks developed cooperatively at interprovincial or pan-Canadian levels. The outcomes statements and curriculum guidelines and frameworks developed or endorsed at the provincial level are issued as expectations and/or requirements for implementation at the local school level. The documents server to provide guidance and direction for developmental work that takes place at the local level. Obviously, the more general the provincial curriculum requirements and expectations are, the more flexibility local school jurisdictions have to produce local adaptations.

   Schools participating in the Learning Outcomes Project (LOP) have an opportunity to go beyond provincial curriculum guidelines to develop learner guides, where the focus is one of how students may meet the expectations (the whats) expressed in provincial learning outcomes statements and the outcome statements identified or developed locally. Since work at the local level must be congruent with provincial policy and requirements, LOP sites must ensure that teachers know about, and come to understand the meanings and implications of their provinces’ outcomes statements.

   Examples of provincial (and, where relevant, interprovincial) outcomes statements are described briefly in sections 4i and 4ii. As well, some implications of them for possible LOP sites are stated. The discussions are organized by Graduation Outcomes and Curriculum Outcomes. In section 4iii, examples of provincial requirements or guidelines for student assessment are presented, followed by some suggested implications for the LOP.
    

   1. Graduation Outcomes

      The broadest, most general outcome statements are those intended to serve as goals that cut across particular curriculums, grade levels, or courses. Typically, these expectations for students are not intended to be measured or observed directly. Rather, they are intended to “drive” the writing of more specific outcome statements relevant to curriculum and grade levels. The more specific outcomes are to be measured or observed directly; they serve as proxies for the achievement or acquisition of the graduation outcomes.

      The term “graduation outcomes” is a generic one. The different education jurisdictions in Canada use terms that are different from, but functionally equivalent to, the generic expression. In Atlantic Canada, these expectations are called Essential Graduation Learnings. In some of the western provinces, they are called Common Essential Learnings. In Quebec, a 1994 report of a task force on school learning developed a Learning Profile for secondary schools. Although the work “outcomes” is not used, the categories of student learning expectations in the profile resemble what we have called graduation outcomes. Note that the Learning Profiles are currently being discussed within Quebec. If they are supported, there would be implications of revision of the curriculum objectives for subject areas and grade levels which were developed during the 1970s and 1980s. In Atlantic Canada and the western provinces, the newly-developed graduation outcomes are already guiding curriculum revision.

      There are similarities in the number and content categories of the graduation learnings or outcomes developed in Atlantic Canada, two of the western provinces, and Quebec. The number of outcomes or learning categories are six in Atlantic Canada and in Saskatchewan, five in Alberta and seven in Quebec. The content areas of the learnings categories are very similar in Atlantic Canada and the two Western provinces. In each case, the categories refer to knowledge, skills and attitudes that are not linked specifically to any particular school curriculum. In Quebec, the categories are not functionally unlike those in other provinces, but the words used more closely relate them to particular subject areas.

      A table listing the content categories of the graduation outcomes or learnings in Atlantic Canada, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec is provided below. The fuller definition of these categories is still quite general. For example, the Atlantic Canada statement of expectations for the category of Citizenship is: Graduates will be able to assess social, cultural, economic and environmental interdependence in a local and global context. For the category of Critical and Creative Thinking in Saskatchewan, the learnings require that students learn to articulate, publicly defend, and change when necessary, their criteria for evaluation. The intention is to better develop students’ abilities to create and to evaluate ideas, processes, experiences and objects. In Quebec, there are 81 particular abilities listed under the seven categories. Under Methodological Skills, for example, are problem solving, use of information sources, setting priorities, and the like.

      CONTENT CATEGORIES OF GRADUATION OUTCOMES OF ESSENTIAL LEARNINGS IN ATLANTIC CANADA, ALBERTA, SASKATCHEWAN AND QUEBEC
      ATLA CDA Essential Graduation Learnings	ALB Common Essential Learnings	SASK Common Essential Learnings	QUE Learning Profile for Secondary Schools
      Communication	Communication	Communication	Fluency in the Language of Instruction
      Problem Solving	Critical and Creative Thinking	Critical and Creative Thinking	Method- ological Skills
      ---	Numeracy	Numeracy	Mathe- matical Skills
      Citizenship	Inter- personal Skills and Citizenship	Personal and Social Values and Skills	Broad General Knowledge of the World
      Techno- logical Competence	Knowledge and Skills for the Application of Technology	Techno- logical Literacy	Science and Technology
      Personal Development	---	Independent Learning	Physical Education
      Aesthetic Expression	---	---	Artistic Development

       
       
      1. Implications for the Learning Outcomes Project

         It is difficult to imagine a set of graduation outcomes categories that would differ significantly from those listed on the previous page. Even if developed at the local level rather than a provincial or interprovincial level, the same kinds of outcomes would likely appear in some form. Indeed, where such provincial/interprovincial outcomes are available, a LOP phase for producing local graduation outcomes would be redundant. It may be more desirable to concentrate LOP resources on developing specific curriculum outcomes than flow from the already-developed graduation outcomes. It is the curriculum outcomes that will provide the direction for designing learner guides and assessment strategies.

         If it is deemed necessary to include a phase of having local parents and community members go through a process of identifying broad graduation outcomes, the process should take into account the outcomes already available. The process could provide a way to inform parents, business persons and other community members about the provincial learning outcomes and to ensure that these outcomes are understood and supported. Any locally-developed outcomes should be compared with those produced at the provincial level. This kind of comparison and discussion of similarities and differences should be built into the process.

         In LOP sites where no provincially-endorsed graduation outcomes exist, a modified DACUM process could be used with groups that include local parents and other citizens. The focus should be on developing graduation outcomes--broad expectations for graduates of local high schools should know and be able to do as a result of their schooling. The group should not attempt to develop curriculum outcomes, a task more suitable for LOP work with groups of teachers.

         In short, plans for LOP activities at each site will vary somewhat depending upon the work already done at the provincial level to introduce outcome-based education.

          

   2. Curriculum Outcomes

      The heart of an education system is the curriculum which determines what students learn and creates the framework within which the curriculum is delivered. Curriculum outcomes, in turn, provide the driving force between what the community expects of high school graduates and the experiences that students have during the process of formal schooling.

      The Atlantic Canada provinces define curriculum outcomes as statements articulating what students are expected to know and be able to do in particular subject areas at particular key stages (by the end of grades 3, 6, 9 and 12). The western Canada provinces and the Territories differentiate between general curriculum outcomes and specific curriculum outcomes:

      General outcomes are statements that identify what students are expected to know and be able to do upon completion of a grade.

      Specific outcomes are statements identifying the component knowledge, skills and attitudes of a general outcome.

      In both Atlantic Canada and western Canada, the curriculum outcomes are organized around content strands or unifying concepts. These strands and concepts embody the breadth of the curriculum and also serve as longitudinal threads through the curriculum. The content strands for mathematics in the two regions are almost identical:

      Atlantic Canada	Western Canada
      Number Concepts/Number and Relationship Operations	Number
      Patterns and Relationships	Patterns and Relationships
      Shape and Space	Shape and Space
      Data Management & Probability	Statistics & Probability

      In both cases, the strands are divided into substrands. However there are two major differences between the development approach in the two regions. In Atlantic Canada, outcomes are written as expectations to be met by students by the end of grades 3, 6, 9 and 12, whereas in western Canada the expectations are to be met by the end of each grade level. Another major difference is that the Western Canada framework is more directive than is the Atlantic Canada curriculum document for mathematics.

      To illustrate the differences between the two regions in providing curriculum outcomes and guidelines to teachers, a comparable strand and substrand were chosen. Both were identified as expectations for students by the end of grade 9 (or at the end of grade 9). The strand was Shape and Space; the substrand in Atlantic Canada was “Describing, Analyzing, and Transforming 3D Objects and 2D Shapes,” and in western Canada was “3D Objects and 2D Shapes.” The Atlantic Canada document states only the following for this set of student expectations:

      By the end of grade 9, students will have achieved the outcomes for Entry-Grade 6 and will also

      • recognize, describe and apply angular and length relationships in various geometric situations
      • recognize conditions for congruence of triangles
      • perform standard geometric constructions
      • investigate the properties and effects of transformations

      The western Canada framework provides both general and specific outcomes for this strand and substrand, and it also provides Illustrative Examples which are sample tasks that demonstrate and elaborate on the two kinds of outcomes. The relevant excerpt is reproduced below.

      Western Canadian Protocol for Mathematics. Grade 9 Strand: Shape and Space; 3D Objects and 2D Shapes

      Students will: describe the characteristics of 3D objects and 2D shapes, and analyze the relationships among them.
      General Outcome	Specific Outcome	Illustrative Examples
      Specify conditions under which triangles may be similar or congruent, and use these conditions to solve problems.	8. Recognize when, and explain why, two triangles are similar, and use the properties of similar triangles to solve problems.	8.1 Given one triangle, magnify two of the sides by a factor of 2. Explore the relationship between the angles and sides of the original triangle and the enlarged triangle.
      		8.2 A person 180 cm tall casts a shadow 45 cm long. A nearby telephone pole casts a shadow 300 cm long at the same time of day. What is the height of the pole?
      		8.3 Sol made a scale drawing of his rectangular garden, so he could plan how to plant it. Two sides of the garden are 10m and 12m and they form an angle of 50 degrees. He drew a 50 degree angle on paper and made a triangle by marking off 20cm and 24cm on the sides of the angle and connecting them. He measured this side to be 19cm. What is the length of the third side of this garden?
      		8.4 Shandra said that two triangles drawn on a page “looked“ similar. How can she find out for sure if they are, or are not, similar? Find two different ways she can do this, and explain your reasoning.
      	9. Recognize when, and explain why, two triangles are congruent, and use the properties of congruent triangles to solve problems.	9.1 Heidi thought that two triangles looked congruent. To make sure, she cut them out and placed one on top of the other. If she couldn't cut them out, how else could she be sure? Find two different ways she could do this, and explain your reasoning.
      	10. Relate congruence to similarity in the context of triangles.	10.1 Explain, giving examples, whether each of these statements is true or false: All similar triangles are congruent. All congruent triangles are similar.

      In British Columbia the stated goal of all curriculum is to promote the knowledge, skills and attitudes necessary to prepare students for careers and further education. For this reason the B.C. curriculum is based upon two kinds of outcomes statements: (1) knowledge (content), skills, and attitudes outcomes relevant to particular curriculums; and (2) applied focus outcomes relevant to workplace skills. With regard to the latter, guidance is provided by way of examples of both generic and general skills outcomes. The examples are categorized as: interpersonal skills, resource management skills, and foundational skills.

      Alberta’s proposal for education change defines curriculum as the totality of the intended learning outcomes, learning activities and the experiences that contribute to and comprise student learning. Alberta is moving toward a results-based, levels-organized, and integrated curriculum. A results-based curriculum describes, in observable terms, what students need to know and be able and willing to do. It is organized into levels which reflect stages of students growth or learning. A levels-based curriculum builds one level of learning upon another, provides a basis for instruction planning, and provides a basis for tracking students growth. It provides for the sequencing of curriculum expectations so that the learning result of one level is used as a starting point for learning at the next. An integrated curriculum is one which identifies learnings which apply across subject areas, gives students the opportunities to recognize and apply what they have learned, and encourages students to expect and seek connections in their learning. Outcomes that are interrelated across traditional curriculum categories or subjects are called common essential learnings or widely held expectations for learnings such as critical and creative thinking and problem solving.

      New Brunswick also is moving to an integrated curriculum by organizing the curriculum around four broad areas: the humanities, mathematics/science, fine arts, and practical arts. The province is reorganizing high school education so that there will be 9-10 block rather than separate grades and so that students will exit the block when essential outcomes are met. Students will also be able to challenge for credit in expanded ways.

      Quebec is adopting a competency approach to its curriculum guidelines, developing graduation outcomes and identifying competency levels in reading, writing and speaking at each grade level. In Ontario, a common curriculum and outcomes have been developed for grades 1-9, but the curriculum from grade 10 to graduation is still defined in terms of goals, aims and objectives.

       

      1. Implications for the Learning Outcomes Project

         The above discussion illustrates that there are likely to be significant differences between provinces in:

         • whether curriculum outcomes have already been developed;
         • the subject areas of any such curriculum outcomes;
         • the grade levels or key stages for which any such outcomes are designated; and
         • the degree to which any such curriculum outcomes are specific.

         These differences must be taken into account in planning the LOP phase of work with teachers in the local sites. The LOP activities must be designed so that locally-developed products (specific curriculum outcomes and learner guides) are relevant to, and congruent with, the province’s curriculum policy and guidelines. For this reason, the LOP site leaders will be chosen from the relevant provincial department or ministry of education.

         In provinces where both general and specific curriculum outcomes have already been developed (as is the case of mathematics in western Canada), the LOP focus will be on assisting teachers to develop learner guides. Such guides provide learning activities (the how side of student learning) that enable students to acquire and demonstrate the already-identified outcomes (the whats of student learning).

         In provinces where the department’s curriculum outcomes are general rather than specific, the local teachers’ work should start with the development of specific outcomes for the chosen curriculum/curricula. Then the teachers may proceed to develop learner guides that are relevant to those outcomes. If there are no provincially-written curriculum outcomes, the LOP work with teachers will have to produce both general and specific outcomes before proceeding to develop learner guides.

         In short, for each LOP site, what is already available from the provincial department of education must be taken into account. Plans for the development work with teachers, and the nature of the DACUM process to be used, will vary accordingly.

         A final implication is that there is not likely to be a pan-Canadian set of specific curriculum outcomes or learner guides. Although there may be a high degree of similarity among the more general outcomes, and a relatively high degree of similarity among provincially-designed curriculum outcomes, there is likely to be some dissimilarity among sites in the specific curriculum outcomes that they develop. As well, the learner guides will be appropriate for their school community and students. The CVA has decided to choose schools from different types of communities, for example rural and urban. It will be an interesting by-product of the LOP to ascertain how different are the learner guides produced by LOP sites for particular subjects and grade levels.

          

5. Provincial Requirements or Guidelines for Student Assessment

   The need for curriculum reform in Canada has been accompanied by a public call for higher standards for student learning. Efforts are underway to agree on desired standards and to develop valid mechanisms for assessing whether or not students meet them.

   Curriculum outcome statements make clear what students are expected to be able to demonstrate at key stages in their schooling, but they do not describe the range of levels of these achievements. For such assessments to take place either during the course of a year or at the end of a year, or both, standards are needed. The word standards appears to have different meanings in different Canadian provinces.

   For example, the Atlantic provinces use the term achievement standards to describe different levels of student achievement. Student work is to be assessed on whether it meets pre-stated criteria rather than on the basis of rank or relative standing. The criteria for determining the different levels of achievement reflect the experiences of practicing teachers and curriculum/evaluation specialists, ensuring (1) a close relationship between what is taught and what is assessed, and (2) a direct link to the curriculum development process.

   Alberta has identified three different but interrelated kinds of achievement standards:

   Curriculum standards are the expected student learnings expressed as specific knowledge and skills expectations and sequenced into proficiency levels (i.e. the expected results at a particular level).

   Assessment standards are criteria used to decide what level a student has attained in relation to the curriculum standards.

   Achievement standards are the number of students expected to reach a particular curriculum level at a specific age of year in school.

   Curriculum standards and related assessment standards remain relatively consistent over time, changing mainly when program revisions are made. These standards provide the foundation on which achievement standards and local targets are based. Local targets are objectives set in schools and jurisdictions to assist students in moving towards or exceeding the provincial achievement standards. Targets reflect the specific needs of individuals and groups.

   Provinces also differ in their requirements for provincial testing of students. Even where there is cooperative interprovincial work to develop common achievement standards and assessment instruments, the use of these is optional. This reflects the provincial, not regional, responsibility for public schooling. Most provinces currently have some form of provincial examination prior to high school graduation, and most provinces provide some guidelines or assistance to classroom teachers for use in their own student assessments.

   The Atlantic provinces are collaborating on the development of provincial assessments and/or examinations for grades 3, 6, 9 and 12 for the three core curriculum areas: language arts, mathematics and sciences. These may or may not be used by individual provinces, depending on their own policies. The development of achievement standards is being coordinated by regional committees comprising teachers and other curriculum and assessment specialists from each province. Each province will decide whether to use the standards. Finally, for the classroom teachers, the common core curriculum guides being developed include suggestions for classroom assessment strategies. These strategies will include a wide range of assessment types, including portfolios, performances, essays and projects, and the more traditional multiple-choice and short-answer questions.

   In British Columbia, the provincial curriculum guides (Integrated Resource Packages) include a variety of assessments teachers may elect to use. The IRPs also present guidelines for student reporting, based on standards, which are expected student outcomes. The IRPs for each subject and grade were written using a common format. The curriculum is organized in modules, each of which has stated behavioral objectives.

   In Alberta, the curriculum guides (called Programs of Study) include expected learning outcomes and reference sets of student performance. The province intends to develop and provide performance-based assessments for teachers on a cost recovery basis; they are continuing to develop assessment materials for classroom use and to help teachers improve their competence in assessment.

   These are but examples of what is taking place within provincial departments of education. Across the country, a common emphasis seems to be on assessments at the ends of grades 3, 6 and 9, and the setting of provincial standards in various subject areas.

    

   1. Implications for the Learning Outcomes Project

      The LOP is most concerned with helping teachers design ways to measure or observe whether students have acquired the knowledge and skills designated in the specific learning outcomes statements written for the learner guides. For this reason, project plans include the provision of technical assistance to participating teachers.

      The LOP work is not intended to yield assessment instruments that would take the place of provincial exams and assessments. The focus of provincial testing is the attainment of what we have called general curriculum outcomes that serve as proxies for what we called graduation outcomes. The focus of LOP-designed assessments is the attainment of what we have called specific curriculum outcomes (similar to behavioral objectives). Thus, just as the different levels of outcomes complement each other, the different levels of testing should be complementary. As noted above, many provinces are now providing some technical assistance of their own to teachers. The LOP technical assistance should build upon this resource base.

Doris W. Ryan, Ph.D.
Principal Researcher, LOP

January 1996

APPENDIX

Outcome Based Education in School Boards

Canadian Survey of School Boards

In September of 1992 the Scarborough (Ontario) Board of Education granted a one year sabbatical to Gloria Baxter, then vice-principal of W.A. Porter Collegiate Institute. The sabbatical’s purpose was to investigate the status of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) implementation with a view to establishing a network of sources of information. Working with Dr. Lorna Earl, the research director for the Scarborough Board, Ms Baxter conducted a survey of 270 school boards with 2000 or more students. The boards were across Canada and in selected U.S. jurisdictions.

The results from the Canadian data may be of help to the CRSP Steering Committee in site selection. One must be aware that, although 140 surveys were returned from Canadian school boards, the represented only 53% of the boards that met the enrollment criterion of 2000+ students.

More than half of the boards responding indicated that they were quite knowledgeable (or at least somewhat knowledgeable) about OBE. Ontario and British Columbia appeared to have the largest number of boards knowledgeable about OBE. Although few systems indicated they had implemented all aspects of OBE in 1992, more boards reported that they were in the process of implementing at least some aspects of OBE.

The findings reported by Baxter and Earl are summarized below. The summary is organized by region or province. The OBE characteristics shown are only some of the aspects queried by the researchers. Those aspects that seem to be of most interest to the CRSP planners for the current phase are the ones summarized.

Because of the outcomes development occurring at the provincial and inter-provincial level, the Steering Committee might find it of interest also that the following boards reported they were writing (or had written) outcomes for existing Ministry curriculum:

Some of the boards listed in the table below ("OBE Implementation in Boards With 2000+ Students"), as well as others, also reported they had established or were establishing a monitoring or tracking system of student progress aligned with the outcomes:

Some of these boards also reported they were developing (or had developed) a new reporting mechanism based on outcomes.

Note: Some of the boards stated that work was completed (e.g. on writing exit outcomes, writing performance indicators, developing design-down curriculum, etc.) and others stated that work was in progress.

O's=Exit Outcomes; Perf. Ind.=performance indicators for exit outcomes; Design Down=from exit outcomes to curriculum design;Perf. Crit.=performance criteria for curriculum outcomes;Auth. for O's=assessments developed to be aligned with written outcomes.

Source: Baxter & Earl (data supplied to D. Ryan)

Outcome-based Instructional Approaches/Mastery Learning

Baxter and Earl also asked questions about school board implementation of instructional approaches that would be congruent with OBE or mastery learning. The following boards reported that they have implemented, or are in the process of implementing, the five major characteristics of OBE/ML instructional strategies (expanded opportunity for learning, corrective cycles, re-teach/retest cycles, extension/enrichment cycles, and flexible instructional grouping):

Alterations to School Organization

Along with changes in curriculum and instruction congruent with an outcome-based approach to education, many boards are making alterations to either the subject departmental structures or the administrative structure of the schools’ organization, or both. The following list summarizes the reports of boards to Baxter and Earl in 1992:

Availability of Policy Documents and/or Reports on OBE Implementation Experiences

Baxter and Earl asked the school board survey respondents whether they had (or were in process of developing) policy documents that describe their system's orientation to OBE. They also asked whether the boards had reports available (or were preparing reports) to describe their implementation process and its impact on community, parents and students. The following list summarizes the findings:

Willingness to Share Board’s Exit Outcomes, Design-Down Curriculum, and Assessment Practices

The following boards indicated a willingness to share all three: exit outcomes, their design-down curriculum, and their assessment practices:

• Alberta: Fort McMurray Catholic
• Ontario: Ottawa Board of Education
• British Columbia: Alberni #70
• New Brunswick: School District #15

These boards had exit outcomes they were willing to share with other boards:

• Saskatchewan: Sask. Valley #49
• British Columbia: Greater Victoria #61, Langley #35
• Ontario: Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry

The following boards indicated a willingness to share their Design-down Curriculum and their Assessment Practices:

• Alberta: Lethbridge #51
• British Columbia: Peace River #59
• Ontario: Board of Education for the City of London, Middlesex County

The information summarized from the Baxter and Earl survey may be of great help to the CRSP Steering Committee in selecting the sites for this phase of the project. As well, some of the boards that have already implemented outcomes-setting and designed curriculum from a design-down approach could likely provide resource people and documents for the CRSP sites. The information within this document should be shared with the school sites.