Although it will not be mandatory, state educators say most school districts will embrace a common curriculum because they are desperate for guidance.

01:00 AM EST on Monday, November 8, 2004

BY LINDA BORG
Journal Staff Writer

Students are tested on the same material across the state. They are expected to know the same things in grades 3 through 8. So why shouldn't they be taught from a common curriculum?

By the fall of 2006, every school in the state will have the opportunity to base its instruction on a uniform, grade-specific learning plan. This does not mean that every public school will be using the same textbooks or that teachers can't pick and choose from a variety of lesson plans.

Instead, the curriculum will spell out what students need to know to write a persuasive essay or to use positive and negative numbers. Then it will offer examples of outstanding student work, provide concrete examples of how to teach to these standards, and will train teachers how to evaluate student work.

"We want this to be a living document," said Colleen Callahan, a member of the Board of Regents for Elementary and Secondary Education and the Rhode Island branch of the American Federation of Teachers. "We don't want to create something that sits on a shelf."

A common curriculum should help resolve one of the biggest problems facing urban schools in Rhode Island: mobility. More than 15 percent of all public-school students change schools during the year, and that number is much higher in city schools, where rising rents drive families to move from one city to another.

Presently, there is no guarantee that an eighth grader from Pawtucket is learning the same things as an eighth grader in Cumberland. In some districts, the grade-level expectations vary from school to school. Some schools don't even have a curriculum, although this is changing now that the state has spelled out what children should know at various grade levels.

However, because of the political realities on the ground -- 33 independent school districts in a state that prizes local control -- the state curriculum will not be mandatory. But union leaders and state educators say that most districts will embrace the curriculum because school leaders are desperate for guidance in this area.

"The districts actually came to us," said Callahan, who also runs the Rhode Island Skills Commission, a teacher training program. "At forum after forum, we heard teachers say, 'We're being held accountable for meeting these standards. What we need now is some direction on instruction.' "

The American Federation of Teachers sponsored the bill to create a statewide curriculum, which the General Assembly approved and Governor Carcieri signed into law this summer. One of the prime movers behind the bill was the federal No Child Left Behind Act, which requires states to test students yearly and to create uniform grade-level expectations or standards.

The measure is strictly voluntary because, according to Rhode Island law, only school districts have the authority to establish curriculum. That worries a couple of regents, who fear that this massive two-year planning effort will wind up being a hollow exercise.

"I'm looking for something where everyone opens their book and says, 'Here we all are,' " said regent Mario Mancieri, a retired superintendent from Portsmouth. "We're a small enough state. We should have a system where if a student transfers from one district to another, he knows where he is."

Another regent, Jo Eva Gaines, shares those concerns. At a recent regents' meeting, she said, "We have to make it very clear that the curriculum is tied to the grade-level expectations and if you don't get on board with this curriculum, you are destined for failure."

Education Commissioner Peter McWalters said there is no need to mandate the curriculum as long as the lessons are so inviting that schools want to be a part of the planning process.

But what happens to districts that refuse to move in this direction? McWalters said that he already has the authority under state and federal laws to intervene in districts that are classified as nonimproving.

State Rep. Paul W. Crowley, who chairs the House Finance Subcommittee on Education and is a member of the Board of Regents, has hinted that the legislature could go back and change the bill to make it mandatory, but said it would be premature to do so until the curriculum is written.

Another concern is that a statewide curriculum would become so rigid that it would stifle creativity at the local level.

"I wouldn't object to having a model for all of the basic subjects with the following provision: that each district retain the discretion to augment the curriculum," said Patrick Guida, a regent who also chairs the Barrington School Committee.

But Callahan said the beauty of this approach is that it gives schools the flexibility to pick whatever lesson or instructional style that works for them. In fact, the curriculum will be developed by people in the field -- teachers, administrators, union members and others -- who have a stake in making this plan work.

The curriculum will not remain static, however. Although the grade-level standards will be set, the way in which teachers teach those skills will be constantly in motion. The Internet will serve as a living classroom, where teachers will be able to share lesson plans, examples of student work and assessments of student projects.

"We want to make this come alive," said Diane Schaefer, director of the state office of instruction. "We want every district involved. We want teachers to identify exemplary practices and look at student work across districts."

The regents have approved a timetable to get the ball rolling. The next step involves appointing people to the two advisory committees, which will develop proposals for the math and English curriculums.

The regents have also requested that $621,000 be set aside for curriculum development in the fiscal 2006 budget.

"This is a good beginning," said James DiPrete, chairman of the regents and a longtime educator. "If anyone is running away from school reform, they don't have far to go."