• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
Curriculum Leadership Institute

Curriculum Leadership Institute

Pathways to School Improvement

  • Home
  • CLI Model
    • CLI & State Standards
    • CLI & Accreditation
    • CLI & PLCs
    • CLI & RTI
  • Service Options
    • Curriculum Ninja Mastermind
    • Workshops
  • Our Clients
    • Online Training Materials
  • Tools & Resources
    • Tools
    • Resources
  • Why CLI
    • About CLI
    • Testimonials & Letters of Recommendation
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Employment Opportunities
  • Contact Us
    • Schedule an Appointment
  • Schedule an Appointment

Stu Ervay

Now is the Time to Strengthen Community and Parental Connections

June 1, 2021 by Stu Ervay

Adult hands in to represent a team
Click here for a printer-friendly version.

For twenty years America’s public schools have focused on complying with external standards. Most of those standards have been written by, or in cooperation with, state and federal governments. Accrediting bodies have also come up with standards.

In the early years of the standards movement the mandates or strong recommendations were not as well designed or worded as they are now. And they changed regularly, often confusing school leaders and teachers.

Reasons behind the standards movement were associated with an attempt to make schools more efficient, less expensive, and more accountable. Accountability was determined through the development and use of high stakes tests. Test results were recorded on massive data bases and used to make decisions about funding. And to compare school districts with each other. 

That movement may have had good intentions.  It possibly improved the quality of some school programs. But it also tended to interfere with the American tradition of building strong connections between and among schools, parents, and community patrons.

Local networking, so much a hallmark of American education, became overwhelmed with externally developed and required strategies to upgrade learning quality. 

Now this nation is besieged by the Coronavirus Pandemic, an event that is changing the nation in many ways. Especially schools and colleges. Ways of doing things in the past seem hopelessly mired down.

The experience tells us much about ourselves and the institutions we revere.

Parents who once accepted the value of standards and high stakes tests are now in homes with children struggling to learn via an internet platform or some other kind of virtual connection. They can see what their children are doing or not doing.

They see the frustrations of both students and teachers as they struggle with everything from poor internet connections, to maneuvering through a lesson. They feel the frustration of students, either their own or others, who have difficulty understanding concepts or developing basic skills.

Far too many of those parents, as grateful as they are to teachers who try so hard, have concluded that this COVID era is when effective education has been put on hold. A warp in time that can only be repaired when everything “gets back to normal.”

But the question is, “What is the future normal going to look like?”

The Curriculum Leadership Institute has long advocated strong communication between and among local school stakeholders. Board members are fully involved or informed about everything being done to upgrade curriculum and instruction. Some of them serve on curriculum councils, along with selected others in the community.

All meetings of the professional staff are open to parents and community members, who sometimes participate in subject area committee meetings. Districts are encouraged to make parents and patrons aware of all actions taken to modify curriculum, instruction, assessment, and other matters relevant to the academic program.

Many client districts sponsor hard copy or online newsletters that explain the improvement processes they are undertaking. Some have a close and positive working relationship with the local media. They sponsor excellent web pages that describe what is being done in substantive terms.

“Substantive” means those districts share curriculum information, and the techniques they are using to ensure students succeed as much as possible even in these difficult times.  They share documents like grade level and/or subject area curricula, that include clearly written “purpose” or mastery statements for EACH subject being taught. Under each purpose statement are listed unit outcomes.

Because both purpose (mastery) statements and unit outcomes are written using measurable verbs and specific content fields, parents can more fully participate as “guide on the side” teaching assistants. They can do that because what is being taught to mastery is not just “stuff to be covered.” A verb such as “describe” tells parents their student must articulate something orally or in writing, and a content field like “how a hypothesis is developed” means listing or even more detailed information as shown in an entire unit outcome.

Teachers and parents, working together, are continually testing students FORMATIVELY. That is a topic for another E-Hint, but the key idea is that ongoing assessment is built on a trusting working relationship between teachers and parents. And no longer dependent solely on high stakes tests and other forms of summative measurement of learning.

Filed Under: Governance & Leadership Tagged With: change, communication, Coronavirus, COVID-19, parents, teaching during coronavirus

Keeping Students Engaged Systematically Using the Instructional Planning Resource

May 4, 2021 by Stu Ervay

Enter button on keyboard is replaced with Learning button in green
Click here for a printer-friendly version.

Virtual teaching is a challenge. Many teachers were not ready to conduct instruction using the internet. Much had to be learned to make the new medium work for students AND teachers.

And if that challenge was not enough, teachers were also asked to use what is known as a hybrid model. A term that means teaching occurs in BOTH classroom and virtual settings.

Back and forth.

Which is hard, especially when teachers learn students do not have computers or are not connected to the internet. Or both. And when parents do not allow their children to attend school for fear of catching the virus.

Meeting such overwhelming challenges has resulted in major disruptions in the continuum of student learning. Chances are good that conditions, while not as bad as the first stages of the pandemic, will be unsettled for months or years.

Therefore, contingency planning by curriculum councils should be vigorous and ongoing. Subject area committees, operating under the auspices of councils, should stay ready for any eventuality. The old idea that we can depend on a single medium for teaching public school students is no longer valid.

Client districts using CLI’s Instructional Planning Resource (IPR) can connect contingency planning to intentional forms of instruction. The IPR does not overcome the lack of personal computers, home-based internet availability, or willingness of parents to risk their children getting sick. But it does give structure to how teachers plan for variable instructional settings.

The IPR contains everything necessary for thinking-through and planning instruction, virtual or not. In clear and specific phrases, it includes the mastery purpose of the course, well-constructed unit outcomes, and their components. It provides information on how to formatively assess student performance. It describes teaching methods, student activities and resources to be used. Alternative or “differentiated” instructional techniques are inserted.

And the summative assessment is not just a one-off pencil and paper test, but a clearly described method to determine if students have indeed met criteria in each component.

Client districts using the IPR model know it to be challenging to create for teachers accustomed to writing and using daily lesson plans. It requires training wordsmith intentions for student learning accurately and comprehensively, and considerable imagination to project all possible variations as to possible methods, student activities, and resources to use.

But developing skills to write IPRs is worth the effort on many levels, not the least of which is a teacher’s cognitive engagement with the curriculum to be taught.

First, the IPR can be saved in a digital databank and used repeatedly. Because it is saved in a computer, it can be modified any time conditions require.  Portions of it can be shared virtually with students or on a classroom screen.

Second, an IPR eliminates the need to create elaborate daily lesson plans. Teachers can keep track of where they are in the margins. They can also code the IPR for use in pacing guides or individualized instruction.

Third, the IPR provides a quick glance at the amount of curriculum to be covered in a standard classroom setting, thereby giving teachers a clear indication of how much seat time is necessary. If the class is being taught virtually, the teacher can get a sense of how quickly students are progressing.

If instructional conditions are poor because of the medium being used, as in virtual formats, the teacher may need to delete part of an intended curriculum. Having to skip parts of an intended curriculum inadvertently happens now. The difference when using an IPR is that the portion deleted can be done intentionally instead of just “running out of time.” Having that option available is important for two reasons: (1) a deleted portion may be selected because it is the least essential element, and (2) knowing what was deleted can be revisited later when more time and opportunity are available.

The pandemic has taught us to be ready for almost anything. In addition, it is teaching us that virtual or hybrid forms of instruction do not need to be inadequate stopgap measures. They may not be perfect but, as with many other things in this “new normal,” those instructional settings can work if we plan ahead more thoroughly and precisely.

Filed Under: Instruction Tagged With: COVID-19, instructional planning resource, IPRs, online learning, student engagement, student learning, teaching during coronavirus

New Challenges Require District Curriculum Councils to Revisit Curriculum Governance Policies

April 6, 2021 by Stu Ervay

Woman holding small chalkboard that says Think Big
Click here for a printer-friendly version.

America is beginning to change. So are its schools. The reasons are obvious. The COVID 19 Pandemic is one of them.

Other important reasons are associated with social disparities, funding, shifting governmental policy, and the purpose of education in a developing 21st Century.

School boards, curriculum councils, teachers, and administrators are under more pressure than ever. Parents and school patrons demand solutions to nearly unsolvable problems. Most of which involve virtual learning, social distancing, and learning quality.

Meeting agendas often include topics shown below:

  • keeping students engaged using distance education,
  • the role of curriculum and instructional design,
  • the extent to which students are “falling behind,”
  • internet access,
  • availability of electronic tools like computers,
  • budgets that sustain the many changes in learning configuration,
  • family support systems,
  • teacher salaries and morale, and
  • the health of both teachers and students.

These topics have long been areas of concern. They are challenges made worse by the pandemic.

The first three topics in the list should be discussed as priorities by the curriculum council. They need both immediate and long-term attention. Subsequent E-Hints will offer ideas for solving immediate issues. However, now is a good time to ensure long-term policies are still in place and working.

Three are most important:

Ensure your district has a clear policy for academic program development, implementation, maintenance, and evaluation.

If there is a policy in place, is it being adhered to by the board, curriculum council, and administrative staff? If not, how can that problem be addressed?

Make certain your district has a long-range plan of action, a process that systematically upgrades the quality of curriculum, instruction, and assessment of student learning over time.

If a plan of action exists and is up to date, is it being followed according to policy provisions? If not, what can be done to resolve that problem?

Clear intentions for student learning called mastery statements are more essential than ever!

Teachers need mastery statements to guide their planning, instruction, and assessment. Parents and school patrons want to know what is expected of students. Three kinds of mastery statements are essential:

  • a comprehensive description of what students who complete a district’s full curriculum will know or do
  • descriptions of what students who complete each subject area in the district’s curriculum will know or do
  • an accurate statement of what students will know or do after completing each subject at grade level

If those three actions were taken years ago, today’s unique challenges might require a few modifications. We suggest the process start with your curriculum council. Recommendations can then be made to the administrative staff and board of education.

Filed Under: Governance & Leadership Tagged With: Coronavirus, COVID-19, Curriculum, curriculum council, curriculum governance, governance

Teaching for Reflective Learning

July 7, 2020 by Stu Ervay

Portrait of smart female college student with books and a light bulb above her head as a symbol of bright ideas
Click here for a printer-friendly version.

As anyone working in education can attest, a greater emphasis is placed on criterion-referenced high stakes testing than in the past. In response to this reality, including reflective thinking in a teacher’s toolbox of instructional strategies can help students think about their learning and ensure that applications are meaningful and relevant in an increasingly demanding world. Using CLI processes prompts for reflective learning can be written into unit outcomes and components. They can be explicitly addressed in the instructional planning resource in the context of methods, activities, resources, and assessments.  Proficiency scales also allow students to practice reflective learning as well as tracking their learning.

Proficiency

Measuring the quality and extent of reflective learning is more challenging than measuring simple recall. Therefore, the criteria for implementing reflective learning must be more extensive than past approaches.  When such criteria are met, however, the results have intense and long-lasting meaning.

In their reflection on learning, students will:

  • describe their personal strengths and weaknesses in the context of the skills and understandings required,
  • identify and question underlying values and beliefs in the context of the skills and understandings required,
  • acknowledge and challenge possible assumptions on which expressed values and beliefs are based,
  • identify and describe feelings of bias or discrimination, and
  • acknowledge fears and inadequacies in attempting to improve.

The reflection required to meet the above challenges is designed to improve self-awareness, the first step to positive change.  It defines learning as being something more than the cognitive accumulation of facts and processes, placing it within a student’s life in ways that make scholastic growth a part of meeting personal, professional, and vocational goals.  It gives students emotional tools to positively weigh what they do, so they can identify approaches that work well and reinforce good practices over time.

Methods that Encourage Student Engagement in Reflective Practice

Educational researchers, such as Robert Marzano, Benjamin Bloom, Thomas Good, and Jere Brophy, referred to reflection as being a means to stimulate higher-order thinking. Many authors who advocate the use of cooperative teaching and learning, as well as constructivist approaches, also consider individual reflective behaviors to be valid behavioral outcomes. Research suggests that extensive student writing and speaking (based on solid inquiry activities) are the best vehicles for allowing student expression that is reflective of engaged thought, beliefs, and emotions.  A Subject Area Committee (SAC) can write unit outcomes and components that are specific to this type of writing and speaking.  On an Instructional Planning Resource (IPR), or other lesson planning structure, teachers can include such methods as reflective journals and other self-evaluative tools, peer critique, debriefing techniques, and dynamic feedback in group settings.  These can show up in the IPR methods, activities, resources, and assessment blocks. 

Reflective Learning versus the Negative Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

We all know that students who are otherwise engaged in their surroundings reject subjects they “don’t like” or find “too hard.”  Consequently, they either fail those courses or just get by well enough to keep teachers and parents mollified.  For whatever reason, they simply don’t learn the subject well enough to make any kind of personal and lasting difference.  Without the personal connection to learning, assessment with formal exams or application assessments, a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy kicks in and they fail.  They justify performance with “I knew I’d fail because I’ve always hated that subject” or “I knew I’d fail because I’ve never been good in that subject.”  Sound familiar?  However, because reflective learning causes students to acknowledge their fears and inadequacies and to identify their strengths, question beliefs, and challenge assumptions – such negativity can be deflected before it becomes ingrained. 

The CLI Model offers an effective platform for addressing this more substantial and meaningful approach to teaching and student learning.  Both a Curriculum Coordinating Council (CCC) and a SAC can systematically build in processes associated with curriculum content and instructional techniques that make mastery real and student performance valid.

Filed Under: Instruction Tagged With: reflection, reflective learning, student engagement, teaching

Footer

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Curriculum Leadership Institute
PO Box 284,
McPherson, KS  67460
620-412-3432

Copyright © 2023 · Genesis Sample on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

  • About CLI
  • Contact Us
  • Employment Opportunities
  • Privacy Policy