DOCUMENT RESUME ED 248 604 EA 017 142 AUTHOR Roberts, Arthur D.; Cawelti, Gordon TITLE Redefining General Education in the American High School. INSTITUTION Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Va. REPORT NO ISBN-0-87120-126-7 PUB DATE 84 NOTE 166p. AVAILABLE FROM Publication Sales, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 225 North Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 (ASCD Stock No. 611-84332; $8.50). PUB TYPE Peports - Evaluative/Feasibility (142) EDRS PRICE MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS Case Studies; *Curriculum Development; *Curriculum Evaluation; Educational Change; Educational Trends; Futures (of Society); *General Education; Graduation Requirements; *High Schools; High School Students; Networks ABSTRACT Seventeen high schools, representing a broad cross-section of American communities, were selected to be part of a network of schools receiving help in reconceptualizing their existing general education programs. The two-year project involved meetings of the network participants with each other and with experts to help the participants develop a model they could use for general education in their respective schools. Deliberations in the local communities involved setting up committees or task forces to organize the redefinition process and choose a curriculum mode. The report lescribes the network schools, curriculum models, interactions with students, and results of the project. The report also provideS conclusions and offers recommendations; the latter, intended for all schools, are as follows: (1) seek consensus on the high school's mission; (2) set policy ensuring periodic redesign of the curriculum; (3) set curriculum balance as a top priority in curriculum development; (4) develop an ongoing program of staff development; (5) develop an organizational structure to ensure curriculum development; and (6) provide sufficient time to design common learnings for all students. The appendixes contain general education statements from four of the schools. (MLF) *********************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. * *********************************************************************** U.S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION MATERIAL IN MICROFICHE ONLY CENTER (ERIC' HAS BEEN ANTED BY 1111`, 0111i/1111,M 11,IS Ile 1'11 reproduced as ,ts .ssmi 1111111 HIP oroarwahon d-R Met 111/11111,M11,1 if M111111 ha11g1'.. b.lvr 1,1,111,111,1111. lu IIIII/111V1) ropri1111/i 1,111, 11114111Y %SO PooriIS II vit.,% 11/ 0 111 /110 11 5 Slailql In 11115 (10C1,1 TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES COIII1.111110n0/ ovAildy rvoreseril official NIE INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)." 1100101 of IttIlit gREDEFIN1NG441 41111 Ima 111=M111 ii About the Authors Arthur D. Roberts is Professor of Education, Curriculumand in- struction, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Gordon Cawelti is Executive Director, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, Virginia. Editing: Ronald S. Brandt, ASCD Executive Editor Jo Ann !rick, Nancy Carter Modrak,and Anne Roney, Staff Editors Cover design: Al Way, ASCD Art Director Photography: Christine L. Roberts Copyright 1984 by the Asstx:iation for Supervision'and CurriculumDevelopment. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced ortransmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy,recording, or any information stontge and retr:val system, without permission in writingfrom the publisher. ASC1) publications present a variety of viewpoints. The viewsexpressed or implied in this publication are no necessarily official positions of the Association. Price: $8.50 ASCD Stock Number: 611-84332 ISBN: 0-87120-126-7 Library of Congress Card Catalog Number: 84.71655 3 iii Contents Foreword, Phil C. Robinson Acknowledgments vii 1. Origins of the Network, Gordon Cawelti 2. The Schools, Arthur D. Roberts 13 3. The Process, Arthur D. Roberts 35 4. The Students, Arthur D. Roberts 79 5. The Results Thus Far, Arthur D. Roberts 89 6. Conclusions and Recommendations, Gordon Cawelti and Arthur D. Roberts 129 Appendix A. Pinellas Park High School's Common Learnings 143 Appendix B. Ames High School's Elements of General Education 148 Appendix C. Oak Park and River Forest High School's Listing of General Education Experiences 151 Appendix D. Ventura High Scl)ool's Requirements for Success 153 Notes 158 V FOreword America's schools have been the focus of numerous reports inthe last two years. Panels, commissions, and researchershave proposed long lists of reforms, including frequent recommendationsfor in- creasing the number of courses required for highschool graduation. Noticeably absent from most of these reports hasbeen extended consideration of the content of these added requirements.Also mis- sing from most of them was any suggestionthat the professional educators who spend their days in direct contactwith students might know something about what those students could andshould learn. The ASCD project reported in this book wasdifferent. It was launched several years ago to address a problem lateridentified in other reports: the curriculum of most highschools is an uncoordi- nated jumble of departments and courses. Eachpiece has its own rationale for inclusion in a total set of offerings,but few school faculties can show how the pieces are related or canexplain clearly to students, parents, and others what all students areexpected to learn and why. Some might contend that since educatorsallowed this confusion to develop, they cannot be trusted to straighten it out. Onthe contrary, ASCD believed that with encouragementand stimulation from a re- spected association, and membership in anational network, teams of local educators could play a reading role inredesigning their own general education programs. This book reports on a series of visits madeby Arthur Roberts to each of the participating schools. It is notreally a final report, because the process is continuing as it should. However,the results so far amply demonstrate the soundness of ASCD'semphasis on cooperative curriculum development and our faith in thegood judgment of prin- cipals and teachers. PHIL C. ROBINSON President, 1984-85 Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development VII Acknowledgments Thanks to the teachers, administrators, students, and parents in the ASCD network who supplied me with reports, opinions, and gracious answers to endless questions. Thanks to Christine L. Roberts, my colleague, traveling companion, photographer, and editor-of-first-resort. ARTHUR D. ROBERTS =qMS.. .1.11111111L- I r L_ 4111,t qo. qq.r. 448.,-mikm: 7 1 'Origins of the Network The early 1980s heralded a revival of interestin the American high school, particularly with regard to basicskills deficiencies. This inter- est WILS not new. Inthe late 50s, many schools responded tothe recommendations of the ..Conant report,which advocated com- prehensive high schools. in my ownanalysis of major reports by commissions or groups in the early 70s, Iconcluded that their primary focus was on developing alternative routesto graduation and on problems associated with the transitionfrom schooling to the world of work.' Only limited attention was given tothe curriculum in general or graduation requirementsin particular. Today, concerns about ill-preparedhigh school graduates are being expressed by employers as well asuniversity facutty members, who are increasinglyrequired to provide remedial instructionin composi- tion and reading skills. There isalso uncertainty about majorchanges in life styles and in the workworld, where people are likely to see significant alterations in employment patterns.Some forecasters, such as Marvin Cetron,2anticipate a "high-tech" futureresulting in several hundred thousand jobs in such areas a:;robotry repair, laser technol- ogy, computer programming,and geriatrics. This forecast,however, contrasts sharply with Bureauof Labor Statistics data showingthat most future jobs willbe nontechnicalsalesclerks,cashiers, secre. varies, waiters, and janitors. Indeed,the Bureau predicts that by 1990 new technical jobswill account for only 8 percent ofthe total new job growth!' The employment scenario hasbeen further complicated by an oversupply of college graduates. One recentlongitudinal studyre- ported that of 20,000 1972 highschool graduates who later received a A1101111M111111 8 2 college degree, 43 percent in 1979 were doing work that did not require a four-year degree. Behind the various analyses of statistics on education and employ- ment is the assumption that a fundamental purpose of the high school is to prepare students for the work world. Indeed, reports appearing in 1983 and 1984 laid blame at the doors of the school for the decline of productivity in America. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competition throughout the world.' This statement from the Commission on Excellence was echoed in other reports, although rarely, if ever, had schmls earlier been given credit for U.S. superiority. (Since when has it been the job of schools to provide training in strategic planningwhich might have told Gen- eral Motors to start making smaller cars sooner than they didor in quality control or technological innovation?) At the turn of the decade the pclitical