As part of its engagement in the National debate about the quality of high school education in Canada, the Canadian Vocational Association (CVA) published Training for Mastery in Secondary Vocational Education (Crawford, 1990). That document reviews some of the current concerns and issues facing Canadian high schools, calls for a radical restructuring of our schools to enable our students to meet the challenges facing them and our socio-economic system, and outlines an alternate school model or paradigm for consideration by educators.
The CVA submitted a proposal to Employment and Immigration Canada (EIC) for the purpose of determining the feasibility and acceptability of changing the structure of high schools to improve their performance. The study, called the Canadian Restructured School Plan (CRSP), was approved and implemented from January 1, 1992 to March 31, 1993. The study was to address three major issues:
The project was sponsored by the CVA and managed by Glendenning Educational Resources, Inc. The operational activity was guided by a management/research team consisting of four members from the CVA. A number of activities were undertaken during the project, including using existing literature to begin the process of identifying the critical issues involved in restructuring high schools:
Some of the activities were conducted simultaneously and often activities, like the literature review, contributed to other activities, like the discussion groups. The intent was to clarify the critical issues facing Canadian high schools and to guide the development of the alternate model.
This literature contributes both to a theoretical framework and a rationale for the CRSP model. A selected summary of this review follows.
There is considerable evidence in the literature that indicates high schools are facing a number of problems and that solutions to date have not effectively solved them. According to Lawton (1991) efforts at educational reform over the years have not ameliorated the nagging, endemic problems facing our educational system. He suggests a number of issues that indicate the need for restructuring of our schools.
These kinds of forces have led many authors to conclude that we have reached the limits of the capacity of our traditional model of education and that it is time to restructure. Further, it has been suggested that we are at a pivotal point in the history of ideas and technology as these subjects relate to the restructuring of public education (Thornburg, 1989). However, most efforts at educational reform can be described as tinkering. The basic assumption seems to be that we have a good system that has somehow become soft -- perhaps because teachers and students are not working hard enough or long enough or because standards have slipped. That is, "it isn't broken, it is only bent." Some of the common solutions to these irritating problems include new or revised courses in the curriculum, higher academic standards, and greater use of standardized testing (Shanker, 1990). These kinds of efforts are merely "nibbling" at the edges of the system -- "tinkering" -- without real change. This approach is not working. It is no longer sufficient to move the pieces of the education puzzle about. They must be separated out and restructured into a new configuration in tune with contemporary reality or, as Patrick (1992) suggests, we must move beyond "cosmetic re-framing".
The traditional school can be described as bureaucratic and mechanistic, in that it is characterized by rigid, programmed, lock-step regularities and schedules for entry and exit. This happens by way of minute-to-minute movement of students among classes, by its assumptions about age and grade levels, and by its top-down exercise of authority. The learner is treated as a passive participant in this traditional "factory" model of learning -- a model derived from an earlier era when the factory was touted as the ideal organization for work and when most young people were headed for assembly lines.
According to Henchey (1988), our bureaucratic schools reflect the characteristics of western industrial society and are based on the following assumptions:
These assumptions, characteristic of a bureaucratic system, may have been appropriate to an earlier era -- in relatively slow moving, stable conditions. They are not characteristic of our modern, post-industrial society. They have little relevance for schools in a contemporary society. Henchey (1988) suggests a number of factors that make educational change essential:
The available evidence suggest that we must re-think our existing educational policies and practices. What is needed is a model that can adapt to fundamental social, economic and political changes in rapidly changing, competitive times and that is suited to unstable conditions when new and unfamiliar problems continuously arise. The model needs to be flexible, non-bureaucratic and capable of making continuous adjustments and redefinitions.
The literature review revealed a number of barriers to change and issues important to consider in restructuring. Chubb (1990), for example, is rather pessimistic with respect to the current wave of school reform. He points out that the reforms which are most consistent with the present arrangements for school governance and administration are unlikely to foster an organizational climate most conducive to student achievement. On the other hand, he suggests that the kinds of reforms that might engender better school conditions are inconsistent with existing controls and are, therefore, unlikely to be adopted.
Tye (1992) and others identify several factors that make reform difficult, including the following.
There are "deep structures" in schooling. There are expectations and practices so embedded in our education systems that they are seldom questioned, and almost impossible to change. For example, most schools actively foster competition rather than cooperation. Students who cannot keep up may fall by the wayside.
fig. 1
Some of the competition is based on the concept of the bell or normal curve (see fig. 1). The bell curve was derived from statistical probability theory and, when used to grade student performance, it requires that scores be viewed in a certain pattern. When a test is administered, the scores are spread from the highest to lowest and a central or mean score is established. Student scores at or above the mean are deemed to be passing grades while those below are failing grades. This may occur whether the scores are all very high or very low.
Using this curve for grading can result in some extraordinary situations. For example, if all the students earn high scores, students who have the lowest of the high scores will be deemed failures. Similarly, if all the scores are quite low, the passing grades might be quite low. Grading on a bell curve may reveal more about the testing and the instruction than it reveals about student performance. Further, grading "on the curve" is predicated on the comparison between the individual performance and the performance of the group. Passes may occur if all of the students do badly and failures may occur if all of the students do well, almost independent of the students' real knowledge or skill. By using this curve, perforce, some students must do badly and score "below" the mean even if all students have actually learned the critical material.
fig. 2
An alternative to the bell curve is the "J" curve (see fig. 2). This curve was developed from mastery learning theory and is based on the premise that all students can succeed given adequate instruction and sufficient time (Block, 1971 Some students will take longer to achieve the required performance standards. This does not mean that slow learners are less intelligent than fast learners; they are just slower. Yet by and large, school as we know it forces everyone to learn at the same rate or be declared a failure.
The characteristics of the "knowledge industry" can be problematic. Those who produce textbooks and standardized tests stand to make substantial profits so long as the textbook-centred curriculum and the textbook-recitation method of teaching Continues to find a prominent place in our high schools. Furthermore, books and support material produced for larger markets tend to dominate the field. This situation contributes to a uniformity in texts across the country. Consequently, it becomes difficult for teachers to create new curricula to meet the unique needs of their students.
The centralization of authority can cause difficulties. As provincial governments assume greater financial responsibility for the cost of education, there is a corresponding increase in their authority. Educational decision making becomes more "top down" and hierarchical at a time when there is a call for more decision-making at the school level. Furthermore, provincial collective bargaining processes may present a constraint in the exercise of latitude in decision-making at the school level.
There have been calls for a national curriculum and national testing. It is difficult to have national standards and national testing on the one hand and school based decision making on the other. According to Tye (1992), the kinds of decisions that are left at the school level include all those day-to-day problems that are extremely difficult to solve, particularly when available resources are limited.
There are competing demands on teachers' time. Teachers are being asked to accomplish too much for too many students with too few resources in too little time and at too fast a pace.
Fullan (1992) also identifies a number of key barriers to educational reform. These include such factors as lack of clarity, overload (multiple innovations to be handled), incompatibility with the school's philosophy of education, lack of sufficient professional development for the teachers, and limited resources.
While no single approach to restructuring with broad applications has yet been identified, there are principles which seem essential for any strategy which involves significant shifts in procedures and processes within high schools. A number of authors have suggested guidelines for restructuring and effecting successful reform (e.g. Leiberman & Muller, 1990; Elmore, 1989). What seems clear is that restructuring is more than just the implementation of piecemeal reform -- it represents a change in the whole culture of our schools.
In view of the fact that efforts to change the existing system in any radical way have met with little success, there has been a move toward fundamentally altering the organization. Th is view of education is described as constructivist. Constructivism views learning as the active engagement of learners in the construction of their own knowledge and understanding of facts, processes and concepts. The process is dynamic and is not just concerned with the acquisition of static isolated facts. According to Bagley and Hunter (1992), the approach is learner-centred, flexible and activity based.
Sheingold (1991) argues that today's restructuring is not seeking more of the same from the past but is pursuing much more complex and vigorous standards of academic accomplishment. In criticizing current curriculum materials, she suggests that they focus largely on the mastery of discrete, low-level skills and isolated facts. At the same time, she suggests that they deny opportunities for students to master subject matter in depth, to learn more complex problem solving skills, or to apply the skills they learn. Sheingold argues that the constructivist or student-centred approach to teaching and learning promotes the active engagement of students in constructing their own knowledge and understanding and involves less teacher telling and more supporting, facilitating and coaching of students. This requires that learning be more individualized with less reliance on the typical format of whole-group sessions. She suggests that only through serious involvement with content, can students be challenged to reason, question, integrate information from different sources and devise their own interpretations.
Many of the early attempts at restructuring education in the form of individualized instruction did not gain wide acceptance, partly because of a failure to address the management problems. Much paper work was required to track and provide for learners on an individual basis.
Efforts to restructure using personalized and student-centred learning strategies have their roots in the work of Dewey and others as early as the 1920's. The Dalton Plan, originating in Dalton, Massachusetts, is one example. According to Edwards (1991), the Dalton Plan involved a complete restructuring of the school day into subject labs, with students determining their individual daily schedules. Traditional classrooms were abandoned, class schedules were eliminated and bells were silenced. The learning was self-paced and individualized. An efficient system of charts helped students and teachers keep track of progress. Academic subjects operated out of one or several classrooms designed as labs and provided with text books, equipment and other resource materials. Teachers organized small discussion groups, helped students with assignments and counselled and encouraged students. They gave up centre stage to become guides and facilitators. The process operated through teacher and student designed contracts that outlined activities not only for learning basic skills and concepts but also for developing independent thinking and creativity. Each morning, with guidance from the home room teachers, the students selected the contract on which they wished to work. Students could choose to work alone, with another student or in small groups. Peer cooperation was encouraged but the emphasis was always on mastery no matter how long it took. Because students learn at different rates, movement from one grade to another could take place at any time during the school year.
Today, information technologies make the management of individualized systems of instruction easier. In fact, technologies have opened the door to the current wave of innovations taking place under the umbrella of restructuring. In this context, Sheingold (1991) points out that computer software tools, such as word processing and graphics programs, can help organize and structure complex tasks for students. Video and videodisc technologies can provide visual examples of real world phenomena, events and stories that students can use in problem finding and problem solving activities. Computer networking and satellite communications technology can help promote local and long distance collaboration and communication among students and teachers. By integrating technologies into the curriculum, teachers can present more complex material to students. Students, in turn, can work more independently. In such a setting, teachers act more as coaches than as information providers.
Collins (1991) has identified eight major restructuring trends in education in schools that have adopted technologies. These trends are characterized by a shift from:
In addition to these trends, research on the impact of technology on education has identified other ways that technological tools affect learning and teaching:
The literature also indicates that any restructuring plan, with or without technologies, will be impossible to launch if the necessary skills and knowledge are missing. Furthermore, real change is impossible to sustain when the school culture does not support it. Collins (1991) argues that to the extent that a technology is flexible, it will be bent to fit existing practices. On the other hand, if it does not fit existing practice, it will not be used. Even with flexible systems, the restructuring of schools to accept technologies can take place only over an extended period of time. Part of the problem lies with the teachers' lack of experience with computers. But this will diminish as people come to rely on computers for writing, calculating and communicating. Furthermore, as tasks which students carry out with computers become more engaging than those they currently carry out with text books and work sheets, then computers will make the teacher's job easier. We can anticipate, therefore, that over the long run, the new information technologies will facilitate the change to a more constructivist approach to education. If our schools are to be better in tune with the realities of the Information Age, change is inevitable. As David points out:
...the absence of change no longer means standing still, it means moving backward (David, 1991).
The literature review led the management/research team to conclude that schools need to change in some particular ways, specifically, the existing school system needs to change from:
Using the information obtained from the literature review and their own knowledge and experience, the management/research team developed a number of issues relating to the internal and external pressures that are operating on high schools. These issues were provided to a selected group of people who participated in discussion groups which were held in Charlottetown, Ottawa and Edmonton during February, 1992. Each group consisted of ten persons broadly representative of the stakeholders in education and the community. Several days in advance of the meetings the participants were provided with the following list.
The sessions ran for approximately three hours and the content of the discussions was wide ranging. A brief summary follows.
In addition to the literature review, discussion group process and the perceptions of the CRSP management/research team, information was gathered from a survey of expert opinion. Eight open-ended questions were posed in a total of 46 questionnaires sent to Deans of Faculties of Education and other senior educational officials across Canada. Twenty-two replies were received.
Space does not permit summarizing the wealth of rich information provided by the respondents to most of the questions. However, excerpts from the replies to one question relating to the implications for change and restructuring of schools and teacher training are described below.
It was suggested that pre-service and in-service training of teachers, consultative and administrative personnel must incorporate the notion that computer/communications technology must be integrated into all areas of the instructional, administrative and management activity of the school. These technologies are seen to be necessary for networking within and among schools with students using the technology as a learning tool.
Respondents suggested that the restructuring of schools requires, as a central concept, flexibility in scheduling of courses, school hours, and locations for studying and learning. A commitment is required to serve students of all abilities, talents and achievements through the effective implementation of individualized instructional methods. Restructuring of the curriculum requires statements of expected outcomes (i.e. the curriculum should be outcomes-based) and teachers should work collaboratively and co-operatively across disciplines. Networking in schools would encourage students and teachers to communicate and collaborate in projects. Grouping patterns should be flexible with students dealing with complex, real problems in seminar groups and not be limited by subject disciplines and rigid schedules. The memorization of what is viewed by many students as irrelevant information for testing purposes needs to give way to meaningful, real-life problem solving. Teachers' roles need to shift from that of purveyor/instructor to facilitator/manager.
Respondents also suggested that schools must move away from reliance on the lecture and textbook-recitation methods to include alternative strategies for instruction (e.g. computer simulations, multi-media presentations, self study, learning contracts, etc.). Schools need to be encouraged to experiment and take risks -- to open up to the community and re-invigorate a teaching force that is experiencing low moral due to years of entrenchment. Teachers must be involved in the restructuring of secondary schools and the process needs to look towards the future for direction -- not the past. Schools require autonomy to innovate and create solutions to educational problems are likely to emerge at the individual school level if there is freedom to act and the support and encouragement to take risks.
These activities involved considerable discussion among the management/research team members. Issues of what characteristics should be required, how to locate and contact schools, how to determine issues of representation and what criteria would be used were all determined. It was especially important to locate schools that were in the process of or seriously considering change.
By contacting ministries of education, school boards and using personal connections, 15 schools were identified. They were located in Ontario (3), New Brunswick (3), Alberta (6), and B.C. (3). Expression of interest was received from an additional number of schools in Alberta and B.C., however, it was not possible to include them all. Initial telephone contacts were followed by questionnaires to school administrators and staff, and subsequent site visits. School documents and papers were collected and interviews with administrators, staff and students were conducted.
The research team was impressed by the enthusiasm and interest shown by all of the schools visited. Most looked forward to participating in the implementation phase of the CRSP initiative at a later date. All of the schools selected had a philosophy consistent with the concepts embodied in the CRSP and it seems clear that the direction being proposed by CRSP is timely.
The management/research team concluded that the traditional model for the delivery of secondary education in Canada is failing to prepare our youth to function adequately in the information/learning age and to participate fully in the Canadian/Global society. Therefore, an alternate approach was proposed, called the CRSP model.
This alternate model combines elements that have been used in the past either singly or in combination. The CRSP brings the relevant elements together with the support of computer technology in a coordinated, systematic manner. In so doing, the CRSP avoids the errors of earlier attempts to manage and control the complex events associated with non-classroom based, personalized delivery systems.
The conceptual foundations for the model were derived from a number of sources described below.
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 non-gradedness, continuous progress and individualized instruction.
Non-graded instruction is primarily a grouping practice which arranges students in groups on the basis of interests, needs and performance levels. Groups may vary in size and composition over any given time.
Continuous progress refers to 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 take tests, complete courses and/or programs on the basis of their readiness to do so rather than on the school's timetable.
Individualized instruction refers to instructional methodologies which permit students to study, learn, take tests and exams and proceed at their own pace. These strategies usually require an array of logistical, curricular, staffing and management procedures that focus instructional activity/events on individual students, rather than on cohorts or groups (classes) of students. Typically, individualized instruction is facilitated by the use of multimedia self-study material to which students are guided or directed. The resource alternatives are as varied as the school staff are able to make them. They could include audio, video, tactile, kinesthetic (games, trips, interviews, realistic experiences, etc.), and/or computer controlled material. Students are directed to the learning resources via learning "guides" which provide specific outlines of objectives, tasks or activities, resources (human and non-human), and self-tests, diagnostic tests or achievement tests. Students use the resources of their choice to complete objectives or tasks. If a mastery learning approach is adopted (Block, 1971), students are re-routed through another set of resources specifically designed to promote the mastery of learning objectives or tasks. The number of different alternative resources available determines the number of times the student can redo a particular learning activity. Of course, some limits are placed on time available and students are not permitted to get into an endless loop.
Typically, the curriculum is broken into components (topics, modules, units, etc.) and then reorganized or reassembled into a new configuration under a computer management system. This process is labour intensive, and requires specialized training. A number of methods for achieving a modularized curriculum exist, including work undertaken by Holland Community College, Charlottetown. Another approach to modularized curriculum development is described by Hathaway (1990).
Central to the CRSP personalized education process, is the assignment of an adult supervisor/mentor to each student. Each member of the professional staff will serve as an advisor/counsellor to a small group (e.g. 10 - 15 students). Student learning plans and activities will be jointly prepared by the student and the adult.
Developing a climate of caring and co-operation is essential. Professionals will have to shift from their traditional roles of lecturers and information providers to new roles in which they serve as catalysts and facilitators. They will change from being "the sage on stage" to "the guide on the side."
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 arbitrary arrangements based on age or convenience of schedules.
The CRSP model focuses on outcomes or competencies. Competency-based education is usually characterized by statements of an intended student outcome. These statements usually have several common elements, such as:
Statements of competencies may be obtained from a variety of sources -- public opinion, existing inventories of competencies, descriptions of life role skills, etc. Competencies cut across subject matter lines and measurement of attainment is by means of criterion referenced tests. Performance standards are central to the notion of CBE in that criteria must be defined in advance so that students know what is required of them in order to achieve mastery and demonstrate a competent performance.
Assessment in CBE generally:
There is also a "hidden" component, one that is not routinely measured in CBE environments, that relates to the acquisition of study skills -- learning how to learn. In the flexible environment of a CRSP school, learning how to learn becomes a goal in and of itself and manifests itself in a myriad of ways as students proceed through the various "tracks" and routes available to them en route to meeting the varied performance Outcomes of the curriculum. Such skills have been neglected in high schools since they do not fit neatly into the subject based organizational structure of the school.
A related concept is outcome-based education (OBE). The notion of specifying educational outcomes or objectives in explicit terms is well entrenched in educational circles and is well known to curriculum designers. The importance of objectives for systematically planning educational experiences, delineating the types of learning objectives (affective, cognitive, psychomotor), and various ways of articulating objectives is well established in educational practice and theory (Tyler, 1950; Carroll, 1963; Mager, 1962). These ideas have served as the foundation for the current move to OBE. William Spady (1977), the prime mover in the development of OBE, uses the words outcome and goal interchangeably but sees outcomes as publicly derived competencies and not derived from curriculum content or textbook outlines. They are based on desired changes in the learner that are derived from both current reality and what students will face in the future. While he feels that outcomes should be set by central authorities, he also suggests that schools should be given the autonomy to achieve these outcomes in any number of ways. He says that if students cannot demonstrate achievement of such outcomes, they should not be released from school. Spady has also incorporated the concepts of mastery learning into his model of OBE in that it is described as a student-centred, results-oriented, standards-referenced system premised on the belief that all individuals can learn.
In essence, OBE contains all of the elements of CBE. However, the latter has been largely confined to occupational areas, and when applied in an academic context, has tended to become a remediation program focusing on basic skills. The CRSP views the terms CBE and OBE as being interchangeable.
Computer support to serve as the "spine" of the CRSP model is mandatory. Of particular importance is the use of computer technology to manage, test and track each student's progress through the flexible, multimedia, multi-event learning environment envisioned by the CRSP model. A number of mature computer managed learning (CML) systems exist and are in place, particularly in schools in Western Canada. Two of these (Pathfinder Learning Systems, Toronto, and the Learning Management System of Computer Based Training Systems, Calgary) are described in the Final Report. Either or both of these systems would be appropriate for use in implementing the CRSP model.
It was clear from the school visits that all sites agree upon the centrality of computer communications technologies in providing the essential platform for the proposed restructuring of instructional, administrative and communications environments of their 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.
School- or site-based management is one way to restructure decision-making and planning at the school 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) and the CRSP model is designed to facilitate interaction among professional staff. School site management will be encouraged by the CRSP model by building on three critical components as identified by Conley and Bacharach (1990):
It is felt that the CRSP model must 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 prone to drop out of school -- altering the scheduling patterns might help. Sharman (1990) found that the strongest causes for dropping out were school related reasons, which outweighed work-related reasons which, in turn outweighed personal reasons. The study found that when the school schedule was loosened up by moving to a semestered pattern, a positive effect on school retention rates was realized. The CRSP model will move in this direction.
In summary, the CRSP model will be learner-centred and teacher managed, allowing for individual students to proceed on their own "track" at their own speed through a series of learning events, achieving mastery of each set of learning outcomes before moving on to the next module or set of activities. The curriculum will be "seamless," modularized and competency-based. Finally, the model is designed to allow for flexible entry and exit of students at any time of the year.
In proposing a shift from the traditional industrial model of schooling to an alternate, personalized, competency-based model, a number of assumptions are necessary, for example:
While the logic of moving to an alternative to the status quo has been argued, there are a number of constraints which may impede the process. The following are examples of constraints that will need to be dealt with before or during implementation of the CRSP model.
An important goal of the CRSP initiative is to be able to demonstrate the effectiveness of the model. Consequently, the management/research team developed 10 hypotheses which will be tested empirically through an evaluation plan. A list of the hypotheses follows.
H1 The open-access nature of the CRSP model will facilitate the retention and/or return of students (Student Retention Hypothesis).
H2 The CRSP model will address the individual differences of all students, including those at-risk, and those described as gifted (Student Variability Hypothesis).
H3 The application of the learning model will yield at least the same level of competency for all students as would result in the traditional approach, but in addition, will promote a wider range of competencies/outcomes (Student Achievement Hypothesis).
H4 The CRSP model will create a positive environment that will be evidenced through high levels of satisfaction among students and staff (Participant Satisfaction Hypothesis).
H5 The CRSP model will result in substantive/meaningful community linkages (Community Linkage Hypothesis).
H6 The CRSP model will yield competencies/outcomes acceptable for entrance to post-secondary institutions or for access to entry-level employment (Post-school Acceptance Hypothesis).
H7 The organizational structure and decision making pattern will create a learning environment that is highly stable and that will result in a polyarchic model of influence/control (Stability/Shared Decision Making Hypothesis).
H8 The CRSP school will function effectively within the traditional high school operational cost parameters (Operational Cost Hypothesis).
H9 The administration of project schools and the systems that are established within these schools will support further development of the CRSP model (Administration and Systems Hypothesis).
HI0 As a result of the synergy of systems and people resulting from implementation of the CRSP model, a number of unanticipated positive project outcomes will occur (Synergy/Unanticipated Outcomes Hypothesis).
At this time, a number of project variables have yet to be finalized. The number and location of schools that will serve as developmental sites for implementing the CRSP is still undecided. However, an hypotheses evaluation framework has been developed.
The philosophical considerations and practical suggestions elaborated by a number of evaluation theorists and methodologists were reviewed and will serve as the source of a compendium of research methods to assist in the development of evaluation tools and procedures. The evaluation plan also takes advantage of recent field research gained through a five-year evaluation of competency-based educational programs in a number of high schools in Alberta (Barrington 1987).
While the specific details of evaluation methodology will be left until the school sites are selected, it is anticipated that both quantitative and qualitative methods will be used. The latter would include document reviews, interviews/surveys, on-site observation, and expert reviews. Quantitative methods would include comparison of achievement levels, student retention rates, and financial analyses.
The initial stage of the CRSP project ended with the preparation of a proposal for implementation which included, in addition to a description of the model: a process for selecting test/developmental sites, views concerning cost-sharing among the project, school boards and schools, a time frame for implementation, curriculum development procedures, staffing scenarios, and issues pertaining to providing "experimental" students with credits and certification.
During the time interval between completion of the CRSP Final Report and the writing of this paper, a number of changes have occurred at the Federal level, including renaming Employment and Immigration Canada to Human Resources Development (HRD). Officials of HRD continued a dialogue with representatives of the CVA concerning the implementation plan. It was concluded that an interim step was required, namely, to organize a "National Consultation" which would review and address a number of issues and challenges that would be posed by the implementation of the CRSP model in the public school system. Specifically, it has been decided that HRD would fund the CVA to organize and host such a consultation in Calgary in late April, 1994. The organization and management of the consultation will be undertaken by Glendenning Educational Resources Inc. for the CVA.
The general purpose of the Consultation is to determine the level of support for the CRSP model among a representative group of knowledgeable Canadian educators. The reaction of the invitees to the issues will help HRD and the CRSP management/research team in their decision-making.
It is anticipated that the Consultation will assist by:
Authors have been contracted to prepare papers on these issues. The papers will be distributed to invitees and presented by the authors at the Calgary consultation. The ensuing discussions (small group workshops and plenary sessions) are expected to generate the feedback required by HRD and the CVA management/research team.
In conclusion, readers are encouraged to acquire a copy of the CRSP Final Report from the CVA office in Ottawa and to provide us with your views concerning what you perceive to be the important issues that need addressing when implementing the kind of restructured school environment required by the CRSP model.
