Curriculum Leadership Institute

Pathways to School Improvement

Curriculum

Do Standards Improve Learning?

by

Click here for a printer-friendly version.

Eight years later, did the Common Core Standards help or hurt? This might be the million-dollar question with equal numbers of supporters on each side of the debate. While this question can be posed regarding any set of state or national standards followed by a district in the past or present, one important distinction to remember is that not all districts providing scores started the implementation of the Common Core Standards at the same time. The debate rages based on measures of learning and implementation of instruction, which both might be valid or invalid to varying degrees. A look at some factors could lend skepticism in the use of data collected at this point, both positive and negative. No matter on which side of the debate one finds themselves, some common arguments cannot be easily dismissed. However, the cause of the success or lack of success is harder to pinpoint without taking a closer look. 

In an article published by Matt Barnum in Chalkbeat, April 2019, there is a list of pros and cons of the Common Core and a summary of the reasons that student learning data is or is not as strong as expected. The descriptions of positive statements about the Common Core Standards mostly refer to the standards themselves. However, the negative statements about the Common Core Standards mostly refer to the implementation of the standards within the classroom or the district.  Researcher Mengli Song of the American Institutes for Research summarizes the results of the Common Core Standards in much the same way, as Meador reported in an article for ThoughtCo in September 2019. Song also cites the lack of consistent data collection techniques and the fact that the research is lacking in reports on success.

We at the Curriculum Leadership Institute (CLI) have been working with districts for more than 25 years in finding solutions for districts to overcome the shortcomings in student success. Our hands-on research has led to conclusions supported by district and state data across the country.  CLI finds that the solution is often not limited to the existence or non-existence of standards. Our use of a specific model to establish a systemic process of determining curriculum, implementing curriculum, and developing and implementing measures of success within the district affect positive gains in student learning regardless of the standards in place.

Standards are essential and can lead to comparisons across various districts and currently across states. However, standards are not curriculum, and it requires collaboration among district teachers and stakeholders to define standards as curriculum.

Curriculum without thoughtful implementation produces less success in improving student learning than expected. Collaboration among classroom teachers for best practice and in seeking professional development for improving instruction produces positive results across the district.

Developing valid student assessments to measure success also requires the collaboration of classroom teachers and other professionals within the district. Following the administration of the assessments, analysis of the data is critical to critiquing and improving instruction. 

Structured, consistent collaboration among district stakeholders, classroom professionals, and local specialists produce positive results as long as there is a systematic approach to making and monitoring systemic efforts for improved student learning. 

All of these pieces have been critical parts of the CLI Model and the evolution of the model is in reaction to current research and current mandates at the state and federal levels. Need help to get it going? Contact us and we will get you started!

References:

Barnum, Matt. “Nearly a decade later, did the Common Core work? New research offers clues” Chalkbeat, April 29, 2019.  https://chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2019/04/29/common-core-work-research/

Meador, Derrick. “What Are Some Pros and Cons of the Common Core State Standards?” ThoughtCo, Sep. 3, 2019, https://thoughtco.com/common-core-state-standards-3194603.

Curriculum is a Roadmap

by

Click here for a printer-friendly version.

“Curriculum” is discussed on a daily basis in conversations within schools among administrators, teachers, support staff, and outside stakeholders.  Strangely enough, it is a term that carries fundamental misconceptions that make those conversations difficult.  Unless everyone involved in the conversation has the same definition for curriculum, what is said and what is heard are often very different.

Perhaps the most common misconception about curriculum is that a textbook or series is the curriculum. Textbooks or any other instructional materials are actually resources. Resources are used to teach curriculum, but are not the curriculum itself. Many textbook series have a curriculum embedded into the resource; however, it is critical that a district determine its curricula locally before resources are adopted. This is to ensure that adopted resources properly support the learning that the district feels is essential – not the hidden curriculum that the publisher values.

Another misconception about curriculum has to do with the federal government’s requirement that each state determines a set of standard skills and content that must be taught at each grade level for each content area. Although these sets of skills and content are clearly called state standards, many educators are under the false assumption that they are curriculum. It is clearly stated in most standards documents that they are not curriculum and that districts need to determine their curricula locally to assure that students meet the identified standards for content and skills.

True, local curriculum must fully employ state standards, but the district may value additional skills and content. Furthermore, standards documents may not be organized into a teachable sequence, but rather they are typically categorized according to similar attributes (strands or domains) such as reading skills, number sense, or presentational skills that would not necessarily be taught in isolation of the other strands or domains within the subject area standards.

On the following page, please examine the graphic representation of curriculum as a roadmap and note the role that resources and standards play in the student’s learning journey.

Curriculum illustrated as a roadmap

In this illustration, the journey begins with a teacher and her students. This teacher is tasked with leading her students to their final destination (the end of the “road”) which includes their ability to demonstrate skills and knowledge of the state standards and the district-defined values. This could be a daunting task, particularly if the “road” is not broken down into teachable chunks or units. The breakdown of the journey, the roadmap, is the curriculum.

Relationship between Curriculum, Resources, Standards, and Differentiation

Curriculum should be organized to include curriculum targets that can be accurately assessed after a unit is completed. The desired “outcomes” for each of these teachable units are depicted as blue flags along the road in the illustration. Essentially, these outcomes are significant checkpoints of student learning along the way.

To ensure that students can be successful at the unit outcome level, learning must be broken down further into smaller steps that will be formatively assessed on a regular basis (daily or every few days, at least). These narrow curriculum targets are depicted as footprints along the road. Each unit outcome (flag) includes its own set of footprints.

So, where do resources, best practices, and differentiation fit into this analogy? Resources are what you pack in your suitcase. They are the supplemental materials that make the trip fun, engaging, and successful. There is rarely one resource that will align perfectly to your curriculum, which is why we use the suitcase to represent resources; it is filled with many great tools and materials – some are essential, others are nice to have along.

Incorporating best practices (e.g., 21st-century skills, math practices, ELA text complexity, and ISTE standards) into instruction is like the sun that sheds light on the trip. Best practices help to produce a well-balanced experience for students.

Lastly, differentiation activities (i.e., intervention and enrichment) are the rest areas along the way. It is essential to pause to ensure all students are on board and ready to progress, using formative assessments as indicators of who might need remediation or intervention activities.  It is equally important to provide engaging, relevant activities for those students who are already with you and can keep up the pace.

There are so many elements that go into effective teaching; but, the foundation of everything is to determine what students need to know and be able to do – the curriculum ­­– and how it will fit into the time that you’re given. If you haven’t already made your roadmap, make it a priority to identify curriculum targets. You’ll feel more confident about having a plan and the chances of students arriving at the destination are much improved!

Want to Improve Reading Comprehension? Keep Science and Social Studies in the Elementary Schools

by

It is a familiar scenario and solution.  The pressure is felt to improve reading skills to score higher on standardized tests.  Elementary teachers can’t extend the school day, so they borrow time from a content area which doesn’t have a state assessment or one not as often.   Social studies and science take a backseat.   Even though this move seems logical with the best intentions, the results are counterproductive. Since the 1990s, the amount of instructional time in science and social studies has decreased over 90 minutes per week.   It is often the first place teachers look to “pull” students from if they need interventions. Unfortunately, by cutting these courses, the opportunities for developing content vocabulary and knowledge about real life is also reduced. 

Why teach social studies and science?  Social studies classes provide content knowledge, but most importantly, students learn the foundation for why it is necessary to contribute to society as a good citizen.   Science activities are a way to capture the interest of students with fun, hands-on, and minds-on lessons.  Learning activities related to science and social studies help students develop problem-solving and critical thinking skills while connecting concepts to their world. 

Support for the Key Shifts in English/Language Arts Standards  Many states have revised their English/Language Arts Standards in recent years and have outlined key shifts from past standards. Continuing to schedule regular science and social studies classes allows opportunities to teach needed skills. The background knowledge gained from social studies and science provides the context to understand new and complex text for greater comprehension.   Reading about science is no replacement for phenomenon or inquiry, but it can help build the knowledge base for “doing” science.   Plus, citing textual evidence from informational text helps provide pieces necessary for accurate analysis of an investigation.  

Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension English/Language Arts Standards require students to use domain-specific words in their writing and while speaking.  Science and social studies classes provide opportunities for students to learn word meanings, read and hear them applied correctly in context, and use the words for communicating.  Students receiving explicit instruction over the meanings of affixes and root words benefits the current class, but that knowledge is utilized by the students to become stronger readers in all classes.  Vocabulary acquisition improves the comprehension of complex literary and informational text.

Student Engagement  A significant, well-documented reason to keep regularly scheduled science and social studies classes, is that students love the activities these topics provide!  The natural fit for collaboration and project-based learning allows students opportunities for implicit learning, developing good work habits, and applying what they learn to their lives.  Learning while having fun is impactful in many ways!

Teachers are well aware of the importance of reading on grade level by the 3rd grade.  If this doesn’t happen, opportunities to be successful in the future will be more of a challenge.  Capturing every moment available for learning is critical.  If you are interested in utilizing an integrated approach to teach more than one content area at the same time, download CLI’s FREE Civic Education Resource, Life, Liberty, Law.  This resource is aligned to National Standards in Social Studies but also references ELA, Math, Science, Fine Arts, and Social/Emotional Learning Standards.  Get yours at cliweb.org/resources-2. 

3 Ways to Avoid the Dreaded “Teacher Lottery”

by

We’ve all heard it. Kids talking about their schedules like this, “Yes! I’m going to get an A in math this year because Ms. So-and-so is so easy!” Or, “Dangit, science is going to be so hard. I got Mr. Tough-stuff, and he doesn’t let anything slide.” As teachers, you never want to be considered the easy teacher, but you also don’t want to be the hard teacher that the students dread. But, what if there was no easy teacher or hard teacher, and all learning environments were equally fair? Here are three ways to even the playing field for your students so that the “teacher lottery” becomes less varied.

Set Clear Curricular Expectations

First things first, standards are not curriculum, and neither is a textbook! Depending on the state and content area, some standards are written to be very broad and general. Some are written for a grade band rather than a specific grade level. In many cases, a standard can be interpreted differently by different teachers. Additionally, standards are not organized into teachable units and may not include a level of emphasis or rigor. Textbooks, on the other hand, may include levels of emphasis and rigor, but may not reflect local priorities and may have more lessons than can be taught in one school year. In my Intro to Business class for example, my textbook included 28 chapters. But in any given year, I could only get through 13 of them with my students. The textbook that my school had adopted for that class included more than twice the amount information that I could teach my students.

The solution to both of these issues, is to develop a local curriculum that is organized into teachable units made up of learning targets that are written clearly (so all teachers interpret them the same way), are measurable (avoid verbs like understand, learn, etc.), and is appropriate for the amount of time that you have with your students. This way, the expectations are clear for both teachers and students.

Make End-of-Unit Assessments Common

When all teachers for the same course are using the same assessment to determine success, students are held to the same expectations. To further ensure that teachers are administering the common assessment fairly, include a set of “administration guidelines” as a cover sheet. Information that should be clarified in the Administration Guidelines includes:

  • the amount of time a student is allowed to complete the assessment (must the assessment be completed within a single class period so students cannot discuss answers when they gather after class?),
  • any materials they are allowed (are math students permitted to use a calculator, or language arts students a dictionary?),
  • the amount of assistance a teacher is allowed to give when a student has a question (may a teacher explain the definition of a word, or clarify directions?),
  • and the criteria for successful completion.

Please note that the Administration Guidelines as explained above are meant for general education students that are not on IEPs. Any student with an IEP must be given the modifications that are outlined within their IEP. Similarly, when administering common assessments to ELL students, consult their ELL teacher to determine appropriate accommodations.

Collaborate as a grade-level team

The big idea for all curriculum and assessment work is to improve classroom practices. By collaborating with your grade-level team, you’re able to share what worked and what didn’t. So, if something didn’t work in your lesson, ask a colleague who saw success to share what strategies they used. It’s OK to be vulnerable, and in fact, improving your teaching depends on it. Look for areas that you can improve and help those that can use your help to find more success in their classroom.

Students have enough to deal with without having to worry about which teacher they’re going to have. It will take a bit of work up front to complete the steps outlined above, but your school will be better for it. Your school doesn’t need easy teachers or hard teachers, they need good teachers.

Need some help with these things? Let us know!

Second Cycle Curriculum Writing

by

Click here for a printer-friendly version.

Most school districts have a “cycle” for revising curriculum, so that each subject is reviewed every five to six years.  The first cycle takes the longest because the curriculum must be created – a Subject Area Committee (SAC) must make decisions about what is most important and what will be required of all students.  Subsequent cycles usually take less time because our starting point is the existing curriculum, which has been implemented and assessed for a period of time.  However, there are still several considerations to be made as a curriculum is reviewed anew.  We still need to consider state or national standards (which may have changed), and we need to gather teacher input.  Now, we also have curriculum for other subject areas, which may not have been completed when the target subject was first written.  The existence of these additional curricula allows us to look more thoroughly for cross-curricular support than we might have been able to do in the first cycle. 

Below are some recommended steps for a second (or subsequent) cycle of reviewing and revising curriculum. 

  1. Gather information about what currently exists.  
    • Complete a crosswalk from the old standards to the new to determine the amount of change that may have occurred since the previous cycle. Make note of these changes.
    • Survey teachers of the subject to determine concerns with the current curriculum or suggestions for improvement.
    • Review data of student performance to identify areas that need improvement and determine if the curriculum is sufficient.  (If it is determined that curriculum is not the root of the problem, then the SAC will need to consider instructional causes and identify possible professional development needs.)
    • Examine curricula that have been implemented in other subject areas to identify where cross-curricular connections might be improved, or assessment items (especially at the elementary level) can serve more than one curricular area, thereby reducing the number of assessments.
    • Identify courses that may need to be added, removed, or modified.  (For instance, the addition of a compluter applications course at elementary or middle level may make the existing entry-level high school computer applications course unnecessary.)
  2. Make any necessary course changes according to information gathered.
  3. Review and update the subject mission and purpose statements.
  4. Add, remove, or make changes to outcomes and components as warranted, and recode to align to updated state standards.
  5. Identify where common assessments are affected by the curriculum changes and make adjustments to the assessments.
  6. Request professional development where data indicate a need.
  7. Evaluate existing resources for their appropriateness to the revised curriculum, and request new or additional resources if needed.
  8. Present changes to the Curriculum Coordinating Council for approval and recommendation to the Board.

Districts that have used the CLI Model for the first cycle are accustomed to using large sheets of butcher paper on the wall, with color-coded strands for curriculum topics.  Most districts find this is not really necessary in a second cycle, since they are using the existing curriculum as the starting point.  However, some CLI districts have found it helpful to make large-size copies of their curriculum and cut it apart.  They then highlight outcomes and components in color by strand so they can track standards across grade levels.

Depending on the extent of revision necessary or the quality of the assessments in place, the tasks listed above may take one school year or more, if necessary.  Some SACs may find their task can be completed in less than a school year if there are few changes required. 

Does Your Local Curriculum Pass the “Local” Test?

by

Click here for a printer-friendly version.

Examine any state standards document closely and you will find a statement similar to this one from the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, page 5:

“These standards do not dictate curriculum or teaching methods.”   

If all states and all content areas agree that you should not be using the state standards document as your curriculum, the first question you must answer is, how are your state standards being used within your district?  Has the local curriculum been developed?  Developing local curriculum can take many different forms.  Some districts buy a canned curriculum (which we would actually call a resource).  Some simply take the state standards and ask individual teachers or individual grade levels to identify which parts of the standards they will use in their classrooms.  Other districts have committees of teachers who actually go through a process to create local curriculum. 

Does your district truly have a local curriculum? Answer the following questions to see…

  • Does your staff use a curriculum document other than the state standards or a canned curriculum?
  • Is it clear when the document was created and by whom?
  • Is it clear who is responsible for using the document and where a copy can be obtained?
    • Is it on the district website or is a digital or hard copy K-12 version available in each building?
    • Do parents and board members have access to the document?
    • Are teachers encouraged to find and use the latest version to drive instruction (or are copies provided for them)?
    • If there are pre-K classes, do those teachers have a copy of the kindergarten curriculum?
    • Do Title I and Special Education teachers have copies of multiple grade levels?
  • Has the format of the local curriculum been explained, as well as differences in format from other subject documents?
    • Were all state-tested indicators included and marked in such a way as to be easily identified?
    • Were decisions made K-12 about which indicators (other than state-tested ones) to include at each grade level?
    • Were some district-only indicators written at the local level?
    • Are there appendix pages?
    • Has formatting such as the use of bold, underlined, and italic fonts been used consistently to enhance readability and understanding of the curriculum?
    • Is there a glossary?
    • Are there instructional examples?
  • Is each item listed in the curriculum considered “non-negotiable” for each grade level?
  • Are both the state-tested items and the non-state-tested items considered “non-negotiable”?
  • Is it an expectation that students will be assessed over each item?
  • Was there a “pilot” or implementation year for the new local curriculum?
    • Was emphasis placed on instruction of the new curriculum?
    • Was the curriculum considered in draft status until the end of the implementation year?
    • Was teacher feedback gathered throughout the year regarding the curriculum, materials needed, staff development needed, and classroom assessments used?
    • At the end of the year, was the curriculum updated and presented as a final document?
  • Is the local curriculum expected to guide instructional decisions and pacing?