What is
Outcome-Based Education
Outcome-based or performance-based education [1] is a shift in
teaching/learning methodology and in purpose. The education system on which America
has run, from its inception up through the early 1960's, is known as a
traditional education system. It
focused on content — was content rich — the acquisition of
knowledge with the child being challenged to use the scope of that knowledge to
formulate a reasoned conclusion or judgment. In this context content means core
knowledge — what most parents refer to as the three r's
– reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic. When education reformers use the word content,
they do not mean core knowledge. [2]
Outcome-based education calls for a shift in that paradigm (model,
pattern), from content to process in which a child is called upon
to demonstrate what he knows and can do against standards established at
the state and national [3] level.
Instead of core knowledge being the focal point of education, problems,
issues, and challenges based as on future trends presented in the
context of unit themes (also known as thematic units) becomes the focal
point.
Under outcome-based education, the district
undergoes a process of restructuring, the framework of which is the
establishment of –
a
mission statement
a
beliefs statement
student
learning goals
curriculum
[4] and instruction aligned to the exit outcomes
assessment
tools to measure whether the child is being moved to mastery of the exit
outcomes
The mission statement is a statement of the purpose of the
organization; the beliefs statement is a statement of belief about
children and learning. The student
learning goals are five or six broad generalizations of what the child should
know and be able to do as the result or end product of his/her
schooling experience. The student
learning goals are called by various names in various districts. Some of the more generic terms for them
are exit outcomes, process outcomes, student learning goals, goals, learner
outcomes and outcomes.
For the purposes of clarity here, they will be known as the exit
outcomes.
Exit outcomes, stated in various ways, are
pivotal to the entire restructuring process, are based on future trends,
are complex demonstrations of personal development, and are intended to produce
children who…
are
self directed learners;
are
critical thinkers/problem solvers/decision makers;
are
communicators and collaborators (team players);
can
express themselves creatively, proactively, and responsibly;
easily
adapt to change;
exhibit
self-esteem; and
demonstrate
concern, tolerance and respect for others as citizens in a global
society [5]
Further defining the exit outcomes can be
performance indicators – broad statements of critical content that
further define expected performance of the exit outcomes.
By law, the exit outcomes at the district level must align
with the exit outcomes established at the state level in order for the district
to receive state and federal grant money and federal Title I funds. This is clearly stated in HR6 —
the re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of
1965 which, in 1994, was renamed the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA). [6] As the re-authorization
of the ESEA, the IASA was written to become the
funding mechanism for Goals 2000.
At the state level, the district must show compliance with the state
goals in order to receive state grant money, federal grant money filtered
through the state coffers (sometimes noted as a 'pass through'), and Title I
funds. How the district is
complying with the state and federal goals must be set down in writing on the
grant applications submitted by the school district to the state.
After the exit outcomes are established,
attention then shifts to designing and aligning the curriculum, instruction,
and teaching methodologies to move the child to the exit outcomes – what
the child should know and be able to do as the end product of
his/her schooling experience. This
requires that the district design down from the exit outcomes then align back
to the exit outcomes to ensure that the curriculum, instruction, and teaching
methodologies are doing what they are supposed to do — move the child to
the exit outcomes.
Books – thick books – have been and are being written
on the shift in the teaching/learning process that occurs in the classroom. [7] For the sake of brevity, it is important
to understand that with outcome-based education the focus of education has
shifted from the acquisition of knowledge with the child being challenged to
use the scope of that knowledge to formulate a reasoned conclusion — to
cultivate and discipline the mind, to the learning experience centering around social
or life-related issues [8] — problems, issues, and challenges
based on current events and future trends — to socialize the child. Unit themes or thematic units,
generalizing social or life-related issues, are centered primarily in two
content areas – social studies and science as these contain a greater
range of concepts and themes [9] relative to social or life-related
issues. Knowledge is integrated
(thus the term integrated curriculum) and is incorporated in the context in
which the child will use and apply that knowledge in addressing unit themes
or thematic units. This is
the basis of the less is more theory – teaching less but teaching
it more in-depth (as it is used and applied) to social or life-related issues.
The process of developing and aligning
curriculum and instruction to the exit outcomes is an in-depth process
incorporating many steps, processes, etc.
Once the curriculum and instructional processes are developed and
aligned, the measure of their effectiveness in moving the child to the exit
outcomes is the assessment.
The primary purpose of the assessment is to measure whether the child is
demonstrating the wanted process [10], the wanted behavior/procedure
[11], as delineated by the exit outcomes. The assessment is also a teaching tool,
structured to instruct students as well as assess. They also teach to the test, providing
information then directly assessing students on the information provided. There are several types of assessment
–
alternative
assessments is a catch all term for assessments that depart from the
traditional multiple choice, norm-referenced tests;
performance assessments measure content and process – what the child knows
and can do;
portfolio assessment is a picture of the students classroom work over time,
much as the artist's portfolio of best pictures drawn;
authentic assessments are assessments based in the
context of social issues – simulations of problems, issues, or
challenges that a person might encounter in real life.
If the curriculum and instruction are not moving the children to
mastery of the exit outcomes as measured by assessment, then the curriculum and
instruction are changed. This
process is repeated until the curriculum and instruction align with the exit
outcomes and produce in the child the desired process.
This is an overview of outcome-based education. The rhetoric and the reality of
outcome-based education are, however, quite different.
_______________
[1] Irrespective of the
attempt to confuse the issue, outcome-based and performance-based education are synonymous. With outcome-based education the child
must demonstrate mastery of the exit outcomes. With performance-based education, the
child must demonstrate performance of the exit outcomes. Although HB
1209 calls for a performance-based system, publications put out by the state
speak repeatedly of children mastering the exit outcomes. Outcome-based education is also known as
Progressive education with direct ties to Socialist John Dewey. [Back]
[2] This is a scenario
played out with education reform which uses words that mean one thing to the
lay person, something else to education reformers and the educational
establishment. [Back]
[3] According to the
Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, national means belonging
or maintained by the federal government. [Back]
[4] In this context,
curriculum does not mean the teaching of the three r's,
but rather the "planned response to the needs of society and the
individual and requires that the learner construct knowledge, attitudes,
values, and skills through a complex interplay of mind, materials, and social
interactions." (Stirring
the Head, Heart, and Soul; Redefining Curriculum and Instruction;
Erickson, H. Lynn; Corwin Press, Inc; Thousand Oaks, California; 1995; p 33,
195) [Back]
[5] Stated in different
wording, these seven concepts are outlined in, among others, Stirring the
Head, Heart, and Soul; Redefining Curriculum and Instruction (Erickson,
H Lynn; Thousand Oaks, California; Corwin Press; 1995), The School for Quality
Learning; Managing the School and Classroom the Deming Way (Crawford,
Donna K, Bodine, Richard J., Hoglund,
Robert G; Champaign, Illinois; Research, Press; 1995) and Democratic
Schools (Apple, Michael W, Beane, James A.;
Alexandria, Virginia; ASCD; 1995). [Back]
[6] This requirement
precludes the claim that the new education system is a national grassroots
endeavor. [Back]
[7] Two such books being Stirring
the Head, Heart, and Soul; Redefining Curriculum and Instruction
(Erickson, H Lynne; Thousand Oaks, California; Corwin Press; 1995) and Roadmap
to Restructuring (Conley, David; Eugene, Oregon; ERIC/CEM, University of Oregon; 1993), although the latter deals
with more than just classroom techniques. [Back]
[8] This shift in the
focus of education is delineated in Stirring the Head, Heart, and Soul;
Redefining Curriculum and Instruction (Erickson, H Lynne; Thousand
Oaks, California; Corwin Press; 1995) and in Democratic Schools,
(Apple, Michael W, Beane, James A.; Alexandria,
Virginia; ASCD; 1995). [Back]
[9] Arts, music,
literature, and media are easily incorporated into social studies themes, while
mathematics, health, vocational/technical and technology are easily
incorporated into science themes according to H Lynn Erickson in her book, Stirring
the Head, Heart, and Soul; Redefining Curriculum and Instruction
(Corwin Press, Inc, 1995). [Back]
[10] In her book Stirring
the Head, Heart, and Soul; Redefining Curriculum and Instruction
(Corwin Press, Inc, 1995), H. Lynn Erickson refers repeatedly to the fact that
the outcomes are primarily process, with maybe one or two content
outcomes. [Back]
[11] In his book, Evaluating
Student by Classroom Observation; Watching Students Grow, (NEA, 1986), Richard J. Stiggins
defines process as behavior, procedure. [Back]
© March 1996; Lynn M Stuter
╪