Curriculum Leadership Institute

Pathways to School Improvement

SAC

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. 

Library Standards to Support Your Curriculum

by

As we begin the month of April, the annual month celebrating contributions of school libraries and staff, Curriculum Leadership Institute would be remiss if we didn’t call attention to the American Association of School Library’s (AASL’s) newly released standards. After reading this E-Hint summary, you may appreciate visiting AASL’s website designed specifically to assist with the understanding and implementation of these standards: http://standards.aasl.org/.

The Framework for Learners is one of three sets of standards recently released and is designed with students in mind. (The other two sets of standards address the school librarian’s role and the function of the school library.) Within the Framework for Learners are four domains and six competencies. The domains are designed to be worked through as a progressive development scaffold by providing increasing challenges, somewhat akin to working through levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. The domains are: Think, Create, Share, and Grow with the six competencies being generally labeled as: Inquire, Include, Collaborate, Curate, Explore and Engage.  These domains and competencies are illustrated in a PDF summary of the framework to be found here. The AASL grants permission to distribute this PDF for educational purposes, so you may wish to disseminate it to your Subject Area Committee (SAC) groups in order for your groups to evaluate in what ways the library standards might be overlapped with, and enrich, content area standards.

Perhaps most importantly, it is always helpful to be reminded that libraries offer a valuable source of technology support and content enrichment, while offering rich opportunities for your students to grow in their research, synthesis, evaluation, and communication skills.  While the internet has greatly impacted the way in which information is accessed, it cannot replace the value of diverse and reliable content that is to be found in a school or public library. Unfortunately, the internet’s transitory nature and monetization often work against the open and free dissemination of accurate information that some of us had envisioned and idealized not so very long ago. For example, many schools and classrooms are sadly bidding their free Wikispaces farewell.  This once valuable harbor for information-gathering and sharing that began in 2005, states that it is not able to justify the cost to update its service to modern coding and infrastructure standards. Additionally, the loss of net neutrality is a concern for many librarians.

However, despite the grim outlook on the electronic frontier, the glut of advertisements filling our screens, and Wikipedia’s annual drive for donations, there is no chance that the Internet will cease to be a source for up-to-date information and communications. The latest media and library standards typically include the use of technology in the best ways possible, sorting, finding, and understanding information. Your state may in fact have its own library media and technology standards similar to those of Kansas.

Now is the time to look inward toward edifying our own use of technology, alternative resources, and information collections. While we look to protect and enhance our knowledge resources, beginning a conversation about the new library standards as a district could benefit the learning processes and outcomes of all students in all grade levels. If your district seeks the full and complete book of the new National School Library standards, the book may be purchased directly from their website.  Also available from the AASL site are free professional development webinars.

IMAGE CREDIT: Laëtitia Buscaylet

Initial CLI District Response to 6 Key Elements of the Every Student Succeeds Act

by

download_pdf_smAnalysis of relevant elements of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) suggests topics of discussion for the CLI district’s curriculum coordinating council.  Although those who prepared ESSA say the act places most responsibility for establishing provisions to ensure school accountability on states, many stipulations included at the federal level do not allow much leeway for creativity or alternative interpretations.  It is therefore suggested that curriculum coordinating councils place the selected relevant topics found in the table below on discussion agendas, with the expectation that whatever the state ultimately decides will need to fall within the stipulated parameters is incorporated into the district’s response.  Familiarity with the entire ESSA document, which speaks to state level options and opportunities, is also advisable.

RELEVANT ESSA STIPULATION INTERPRETATION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CLI MODEL SUGGESTED CLI DISTRICT RESPONSE
Each state’s plan must provide an assurance that the state has adopted challenging academic content standards and aligned academic achievement standards (challenging state academic standards) that include not less than three levels of achievement. This was written with the knowledge that some states will use national standards such as the Common Core State Standards or Next Generation Science Standards, and others will either write new standards or retain those used during the NCLB era. The ESSA stipulation neither requires nor eliminates the use of state tests in specific subject areas, but obviously suggests the development of local assessments that can classify and record student achievement according to proficiency levels. A CLI district that has completed all elements of its K-12 curriculum should find it easy to align with any new state standards, since the wording and formatting are already in place. CCC directives to SACs when modified state standards are prepared are to cross-check for wording, especially in terms of measurable verbs and academic content. New or additional high achievement unit outcomes may need to be written. Also, SACs may need to examine the summative assessments and formative assessment categories in instructional planning resource (IPR) documents to ensure the inclusion of point totals or rubrics that meet the “three levels of achievement” indicated in the ESSA stipulation.
Each state is required to adopt ELP (English language proficiency) standards aligned to the state’s reading or language arts content standards. Standards must be aligned to ensure students who meet the standards are on track for postsecondary education or employment. At this point we cannot be certain how a given state will “align” ELP to its reading or language arts content standards. However, there will doubtless be some kind of proficiency indicator with regard to speaking, reading and writing the English language that includes vocabulary tests measuring how well students understand commonly applied technical terms, or phrases associated with other forms of higher education. Once a clearly articulated English Language Arts curriculum is established, English language learner specialists can help to identify the additional language needs of English language learners. Those learner outcomes or accommodations would be added to the English curriculum. A CLI district also often develops and uses a vocabulary/spelling proficiency list for each of the grade levels and subject areas, especially at the elementary school level. Teachers are required to include those words in their instructional programs. Building principals would also play a role in working with teachers in improving instructional programs.
Assessments must measure multiple measures of student achievement, including higher order thinking skills and student growth. States are permitted to meet these requirements by administering a single summative assessment or multiple assessments during a school year. Each method must result in a single summative score. Portfolios, extended performance tasks and computer-adaptive assessments are permitted testing practices. Your state may have already decided on the kind of assessments it will use, or will just continue to use what it already has. The problem is that many older tests do not test for high order thinking or student growth. Mass testing requires mass scoring, which should include the creation of very sophisticated assessment items as well as extensive training for those who evaluate them. This is especially true for portfolios and extended performance tasks. CLI districts are already acquainted with high achievement unit outcomes that require multi-faceted student responses. They are often used in the summative assessment category of instructional planning resource documents. In fact, the assessments written by CLI districts might serve as examples of how state assessments could be created to measure higher order thinking skills.
Accountability is measured through academic achievement measured by proficiency on annual assessments, which may include student growth for high schools. Allowed in elementary and middle grades is a measure of student growth or other valid and reliable indicator that allows for differentiation in student performance. Progress (in all grades) must be achieved in English language proficiency. At least one indicator of school quality or student success must be deemed valid, reliable, comparable and allow for meaningful differentiation. Clearly, a one size fits all state assessment of the kind used predominately in the NCLB era would be difficult to use to measure student growth in terms of “differentiation in student performance.” Mixed with the assessment of English language proficiency, it is even more difficult. An indicator of school quality in the context of validity and reliability, and a measure of comparability and differentiation, is difficult to define. Let us assume that state officials will need to depend on model district and school programs to define and apply the stipulation found here. As with the above response, student growth in the academics and English language can be measured using CLI processes, primarily because they are built on specific and carefully worded intentions for student learning (outcomes/components). CLI’s IPR and teacher use of it will certainly facilitate validity (meeting intended purposes) and reliability (meeting such purposes consistently). Again, the existence of a well-crafted and written curriculum provides a much better chance that comparisons among proficiency scores can be made and differentiations noted in the quality of student learning.
For each school identified as low-performing, districts must develop a comprehensive support and improvement plan that includes evidence-based interventions. The plan should be developed after a needs assessment and the identification of resource inequities in each low performing school. The assumption in this stipulation is that a district would use an intervention only when a school is low-performing. The more efficacious method would be to have a continuously applied plan to maintain quality among ALL schools, making modifications when evidence indicates implementation problems in those schools which are not meeting expectations. The CLI Model is already established as an ongoing plan to continuously improve ALL schools in a district, and the data generated by the implementation of that plan makes any deficiencies clear. The academic governance structure of the CCC/SAC system, working in concert with the administrative team and board of education, can quickly make necessary adjustments in low performing schools.
States must establish and implement, with consultation with school districts, standardized statewide entrance and exit procedures for English learners. Educator professional development and preparation activities must be established to improve teaching skills in meeting the diverse needs of English learners. Districts in each state must obviously work in concert with the state in making this kind of system work. States might be advised to study progressive districts who have designed ELL entrance and exit programs that serve the described needs of English learners. Professional development at the district and building levels should incorporate training in working with English learners along with all other students. The CLI Model is both a program development and maintenance construct, as well as an ongoing and integrated form of teacher training. Again, in the CLI Model the curriculum is actually developed and implemented by teachers, as led by the CCC, SACs, and administrative teams. Such constant improvement efforts and monitoring are ongoing and effective.

The above areas of interest are primarily focused on matters pertaining to a district’s curriculum, instruction, and assessment.  They are very relevant to the work of the district’s curriculum coordinating council and subject area committees.  While the excitement around ESSA focuses on the return of powers to state and local boards, it is still important for district officials to become familiar with all the ESSA regulations with regard to requirements of states, including funding distributions, data collection of student progress, and other matters that will impact the allocation of federal funds for school improvement activities.

A Handy Guide for Annual Recognition

by

lawn mower in grass

download_pdf_smRecently, another educator used a really great metaphor about taking time to “mow the lawn” now and again. Mowing the lawn is perhaps one of the least hated chores that we have to do. Maybe it’s because freshly cut grass smells so nice or because we also get in a little workout, but very likely it is due to the sense of instant gratification we feel when we take a look back at our progress.

Here we are in May and the end of the year is quickly approaching. The amount of hard work that has taken place with regard to curriculum, instruction, and assessment has, no doubt, seemed overwhelming to those who have participated in the process. But there are also many stakeholders who were not on the Curriculum Coordinating Council (CCC) or a Subject Area Committee (SAC) and who may not fully understand what has taken place.

So, take a moment to “mow the lawn.” Put together some sort of communication, whether it be an article in your district newsletter, an article in the community newspaper, or a video for the district website that highlights district curriculum, instruction, and assessment achievements from the past year. Don’t forget to present this as part of your report to the School Board at the next meeting; it is essential that they see the progress that the district has made!

Some questions to consider when “mowing the lawn:”

  1. Looking back at our year, what have we accomplished?
  2. What has been our greatest achievement? In other words, what makes us most proud?
  3. What role(s) did people play in each achievement?
  4. What excites us about the opportunities ahead?

To assist in answering these questions, below you will find a list of potential achievements from three stakeholder groups: CCC, SAC, and teachers. Look through each category and highlight the achievements that have been accomplished this year. Use the following lists to highlight the achievements of which you are most proud!

Potential Governance (CCC) Achievements

  • Created a set of operating procedures for curriculum, instruction, and assessment work.
  • Developed or revised a Long Range Plan to meet the needs of the district and align with state requirements.
  • Created or revised the District Mission and Vision statements as a guide for all work within the district.
  • Drafted or finalized a mastery statement as a foundation for making decisions regarding curriculum, instruction, and assessments.
  • Determined requirements for implementing the curriculum through classroom instruction and assessments.
  • Analyzed educational best practices to determine the effectiveness of current grading practices and grade reporting and offered researched solutions for consideration, discussion, and implementation.
  • Analyzed educational best practices to determine the effectiveness of extended learning opportunities and offered researched solutions for consideration, discussion, and implementation.
  • Prioritized professional development opportunities for upcoming years.

Potential Curriculum and Assessment (SAC) Achievements

  • Gathered information from all teachers within a content area about what is currently being taught.
  • Interpreted state standards to determine what they really mean.
  • Created a Subject Mission based on the desired profile of a graduating student regarding this content area.
  • Determined what is essential at each grade level and clarified the horizontal and vertical progression.
  • Drafted a guaranteed and viable curriculum to include outcomes and components that are high-priority, grade-appropriate, essential and focused, and are aligned to state standards.
  • Revised curriculum according to teacher feedback.
  • Drafted common outcome assessments aligned to the curriculum.
  • Revised common outcome assessments according to teacher feedback.

Potential Classroom (Teacher) Achievements Related to Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment

  • Drafted a Pacing Guide for teaching the curriculum and kept notes that can be used to write next year’s Pacing Guide
  • Organized materials and/or gradebook by outcome.
  • Used the new/draft curriculum and provided feedback to the Subject Area Committee.
  • Created instructional plans in alignment with the current target subject within the district curriculum
    • Developed formative assessments to determine if students are ready to move on
    • Aligned teacher strategies and student activities to promote student engagement
    • Created differentiation and enrichment opportunities to move students toward mastery of curriculum.
  • Provided feedback about potential resources with regard to their alignment to the curriculum.
  • Used common outcome assessments and analyzed student data to differentiate or revise instructional plans to ensure mastery for all students.
  • Provided feedback to the Subject Area Committee regarding the draft common outcome assessments.

Celebrate another successful year!