In 2009, the National Governors Association developed a policy position regarding education reform. The policy position outlines the role of governors, alignment of the education system, state accountability systems, adequate yearly progress, rigorous curricula, funding, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and voluntary international benchmarking. The following excerpt from the policy position shows how far the United States has come since the No Child Left Behind Act became law and it shows the commitment of the National Governors Association to continue seeking methods for supporting public education, while holding educators and policy makers accountable to high standards in all fifty states. "Education is primarily and properly a state responsibility. Governors also recognize the important and supporting role of the federal government in education. The federal government can assist states by providing extra and essential assistance for students most in need, recognizing and assisting teachers, and supporting governors’ leadership authority through NCLB. In reauthorizing NCLB, Congress should reinforce and support sound state education practices, roll back restrictions on states’ ability to align and integrate delivery systems for students, assist and recognize the needs of our nation’s teachers, and ultimately, support state efforts to raise student achievement. For this reason, governors urge Congress to adopt and support the following recommendations to further reform elementary and secondary education" (National Governors Association,2009). As of the fall of 2009, two years after the 2001 law was set to expire, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and No Child Left Behind Act still has not been reauthorized. It is possible that Congress will reauthorize ESEA in 2010 or 2011. Teachers, families, tax payers, politicians, policy makers, state departments of education, local education agencies and other stakeholders will have the opportunity to address state standards, curriculum and instruction, and state assessments. What are your thoughts regarding the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and No Child Left Behind? Should the United States develop national standards for education? Should NCLB remain the same? Should a dramatic overhaul take place? If No Child Left Behind supports student achievement, then how can it be improved? References: National Governors Association. (2008). Benchmarking for success: Ensuring U.S. students receive a world-class education. Retrieved September 18, 2009, from http://www.achieve.org/files/BenchmarkingforSuccess.pdf. National Governors Association. (2009). Policy position: Education reform. Retrieved October 20, 2009, from http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.8358ec82f5b198d1 8a278110501010a0/?vgnextoid=20ca9e2f1b091010VgnVCM1000001a01010aR CRD No Child Left Behind Act, Public Law 107-110. (2002). Retrieved October 22, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf. The Hidden Curriculum 10/24/2009
 Hidden Curriculum During the month of October thousands of children will dress in costumes and attend fall festivals in their community. As we carve pumpkins and share ghost stories, it reminds me of the "hidden" curriculum in schools. The "hidden" curriculum is the unintended curriculum. "It defines what students learn from the physical environment, the policies, and the procedures of the school" (Glatthorn & Jailall, 2009, p. 110). The main factors that seem to constitute the hidden curriculum are: • Time Allocation • Space Allocation • Use of discretionary funds • Student discipline • Physical Appearance • Student Activities Program • Communication • Power Educators should analyze the “hidden” curriculum on a regular basis. When an analysis of the “hidden” curriculum has been completed, the principal and the teachers should identify those "hidden" messages that do not reflect the intended curriculum. Source: Glatthorn, A.A. & Jailall, J.M. (2009). The principal as curriculum leader: Shaping what is taught and tested. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Examples of the “Hidden” Curriculum in Schools In a school that administers common formative assessments on a regular basis, a student may ask the teacher, “Why do we have tests every three weeks?” If the teacher replies, “We want all of our students to be prepared for the End-of-Grade tests in the spring”, then the “hidden” message will imply that the purpose for school is to prepare for a single test. The message schools want to send is that learning is an ongoing process and their intention is to develop lifelong learners. However, the answer that the teacher gave indicates that common formative assessments are intended to prepare students for a high-stakes test, rather than a method to assess students’ understanding of the current unit of study. In a school that teaches social studies three days per week, a student may ask the teacher, “Why do we study social studies less than other subjects?” If the teacher replies, “Students won’t be tested in social studies until high school," then the student learns that social studies is not as important as the other subjects. If the student follows the teacher’s advice, then the student will not place much value on the following concepts, democracy, citizenship, courage, change, rights, responsibilities, voting, leadership, and government. This example demonstrates how the “hidden” curriculum interferes with the written and taught curricula in schools. Questions for Administrators and Collaborative Teams 1. What are the “hidden” messages that students receive in our school/school district? 2. How do the current “hidden” messages interfere with the intended curriculum? 3. What can teachers and administrators do to correct unintended messages? 4. Does the “hidden” curriculum exist in our school, or is it a “ghost story” without supporting evidence? 5. Is it possible to have a “hidden” curriculum every year since educators are humans and humans are not perfect? The following quote provides an opportunity for educators to discuss opportunity to learn, curriculum development, essential learnings, enduring understandings, the enacted curriculum, curriculum alignment and pacing. Additional resources on these topics may be found by clicking on the topics listed in the blog archives. This quote explains the complexity of K-12 curriculum development. “The enacted curriculum, the actual instruction delivered in the classroom, is ultimately controlled by the teacher, negotiated with a particular set of students at a particular time. In designing the enacted curriculum, teachers make content decisions about how much time to spend, what topics to cover within what time, which students are to study what content and to what standards of achievement. Collectively, these four teacher content decisions determine school provided opportunity to learn (Porter et al. 1988). As a result, there are substantial differences in the enacted curriculum provided by teachers teaching ostensibly the same course, even within the same school” (Porter, 1989). Questions for Discussion: 1. Does our school system have a process for curriculum development? 2. Does our school system use technology to support ongoing collaboration and professional conversations regarding K-12 curriculum decisions? 3. What is our current reality? In other words, what is the enacted curriculum? 4. What are the four teacher content decisions that determine school provided opportunity to learn? 5. How can this short quote help our staff improve our current K-12 curriculum development process? Reference: Porter, A. C. (1994). Standards and school improvement in the 1990's: Issues and Promise. American Journal of Education, 102(4), 421-449. School districts across the United States are making the transition from teachers working in isolation to teachers and administrators operating as a Professional Learning Community. A Professional Learning Community is more than a group of teachers having a common meeting date and location on a weekly basis. If organized properly, DuFour, Eaker and DuFour (2005) explain that the following questions will guide the work of a Professional Learning Community. 1. What is it we want all students to learn? 2. How will we know when each student has mastered the essential learning? 3. How will we respond when a student experiences initial difficulty in learning? 4. How will we deepen the learning for students who have already mastered essential knowledge and skills? In this article, I want to share how curriculum mapping is a tool which supports the work of a Professional Learning Community. Question number one asks 'what’ do we want all students to learn. Without curriculum maps, teachers have not documented ‘what’ students should learn. If teachers in one building agree on ‘what’ students should learn and teachers in another school decide on ‘what’ students should learn, then vertical alignment within the school district will be virtually nonexistent. How will we know when each student has mastered the essential learning? Once again, in the absence of curriculum maps it is difficult to know what is essential. If a Professional Learning Team develops common formative assessments, but they lack curriculum maps then how will the educators know ‘what’ to assess? Some researchers have indicated that teachers should identify the curriculum using the following descriptions: Introductory, Review, and Mastery or Understanding. Until teachers develop a curriculum map, some teachers may teach the state standards for Introductory and other teachers may teach the same standards until students develop Mastery. Wiggins and McTighe (2005), wrote, "In the absence of a learning plan with clear goals, how likely is it that students will develop shared understandings on which future lessons might build." (p. 21)? Question three asks educators to respond when students experience difficulty in learning. It is difficult to respond when students struggle with learning, if each teacher is aiming for a different goal. Some educators struggle with this approach and argue that a common curriculum is a scripted curriculum. What I am describing is a common curriculum which outlines the enduring understandings, key concepts, key skills and power standards. If we can clarify what we want every student to know and be able to do, then we will be able to support students when they struggle with the essential learning(s). ‘How’ a teacher chooses to lead students to understand essential skills and concepts is not dictated by a curriculum map. The best educators understand that student learning styles and readiness levels vary from one class to the next. One teacher may teach a concept differently in first period than she does in second period. A curriculum map will help educators organize the district’s common curriculum. Marzano (2003) calls this the ‘guaranteed and viable curriculum’ and his research led him to believe that this is the number one factor which impacts student achievement. The fourth question asked in a professional learning community allows educators to challenge each student at their respective readiness level. If a student is ready for the next level of learning, then teachers can use the curriculum maps to guide their instructional decisions. It is difficult for teachers to differentiate instruction if they do not share a common starting point to differentiate from. Curriculum maps provide teachers with a starting point. Vertical alignment helps teachers see where students will take their learning at the next level. If a concept is taught for Introduction in the third grade, but two students are ready to move to the next level then teachers can create learning experiences which challenge those students and teach the introductory level of knowledge to the rest of the class. The attached resource was developed by Steven Weber (2009) and it shares the curriculum mapping process. If your staff operates as a Professional Learning Community, but you do not frequently discuss a common curriculum you may also benefit from Unpacking Standards – The Process. References: DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (Eds.). (2005). On common ground: The power of professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service. Marzano, R.J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design:Expanded 2nd edition. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 
Ten Myths About Curriculum Development 10/11/2009
Ten Myths About Curriculum Development Curriculum development is the heart of education. Curriculum developers range from politicians to school administrators and classroom teachers. This article shares ten myths about curriculum development. When curriculum is misunderstood or not aligned, it has a detrimental effect on student achievement. 1. Curriculum should be developed by the Central Office staff and delivered by classroom teachers. 2. State Standards are the curriculum. 3. Curriculum development and revision should take place once every five years. 4. Curriculum development should not become a political process. 5. Curriculum and pacing should be designed to follow the adopted textbook. 6. If educators select verbs which require higher-order thinking skills, then the district will have a rigorous curriculum. 7. When curriculum maps are completed, then teachers should move to a new district project. 8. If every sixth grade teacher uses the same curriculum, then teaching will become scripted. 9. If a curriculum is developed, then teachers will create lessons and units using the district's curriculum. 10. If the district develops a strong curriculum, then student understanding will increase. Please feel free to post your thoughts on the Ten Myths About Curriculum Development or share additional myths. Five Questions For Curriculum Developers 10/08/2009
 Curriculum development is an ongoing process which requires collaboration, conflict-resolution and reflection. Too often, schools approach curriculum development as a product to be created. When teachers come to a fork in the road, they often blame weaknesses in the document and resort to their own curriculum. It is difficult, if not impossible, to have curriculum alignment when each teacher chooses essential skills and key concepts in isolation. Collaboration: Since classroom teachers decide what every student should know and be able to do, then they should be involved in the curriculum development process. Unpacking the standards, curriculum mapping, unit development, writing generalizations, developing essential questions and creating common formative assessments are each opportunities for collaboration. Conflict-Resolution: Conflict is often avoided when teachers discuss curriculum development. Lencioni (2002) identified "The Fear of Conflict" as one of the five dysfunctions of teams. When teachers debate which skills are essential and what content can be ommited, curriculum development becomes a matter of conflict resolution. When teacher teams embrace conflict and encourage conflicting opinions they are supporting student achievement. Reflection: When teacher teams reflect on the written, taught and assessed curricula, they will improve the district's curriculum. When teachers develop curriculum and fail to assess its effectiveness, it is difficult to know if the curriculum is meeting the needs of each student. Five Questions For Curriculum Developers: 1. Does our school have a 'guaranteed curriculum'? 2. Is our curriculum aligned (Vertically and Horizontally)? 3. Do teachers have a tool or method for communicating the strengths and weaknesses of the 'guaranteed curriculum'? 4. When teachers develop common formative assessments, do they use the district's curriculum as a guide for developing assessments? 5. Are teachers meeting on a regular basis to reflect on the written, taught, and assessed curricula? If curriculum drives the work of teacher teams, then schools must create time for teachers to collaborate, engage in conflict and provide time during the school day for reflection and revision. Curriculum development should be a priority in schools, rather than something that is handed to teachers as a top-down product. When teachers collaborate to develop the curriculum, they will have co-workers who support them when they come to a fork in the road in instruction. If We Can, Should We? 10/04/2009
A good activity for teacher teams is called "If We Can, Should We?" See Examples Below: If we can build a guaranteed and viable curriculum, should we? If we can meet as a vertical team once per month, should we? If we can raise student achievement through curriculum alignment, should we? If we can gain greater clarity about 'what' to teach by unpacking the standards, should we? If we can help more students through differentiated instruction, should we? If we can help students develop critical thinking skills through writing essential questions, should we? If we can improve curriculum development and instruction through data analysis, should we? If we can develop a rigorous curriculum through teacher collaboration, should we continue to work in isolation? The goal is to have teacher teams develop the questions, rather than having a list of questions for the teacher teams to answer. There are multiple variations that teacher teams can use with this activity. While the questions may sound like someone is challenging the group or individual members of the group, the intent of the activity is to help teachers begin a conversation which has the potential to improve teaching and learning. When we begin to realize that our collective efforts can drastically improve each student's future, it is worth the time and effort to have this initial conversation. A good follow-up activity is to begin developing SMART Goals. SMART Goals will help teacher teams stay focused and will require a commitment to action. | AuthorSteven Weber is the Director of Secondary Instruction for Orange County Schools in Hillsborough, NC. Weber has served as a classroom teacher, assistant principal, and state department of education consultant in Arkansas and North Carolina. He consults school systems in aligning their curriculum and in unpacking curriculum standards.  ArchivesMarch 2010 CategoriesAll | ||
RSS Feed