Evaluating Curriculum

The terms curriculum and evaluation have been paired together for ages, and they continue to be relevant in today’s educational environment. In the 1960s, Welch offers a definition for each of these terms. He defines curriculum as “pupil behavior pertinent to the goals of the school” and evaluation as “the gathering of information for the purpose of making decisions” (429). In today’s society, researchers are even considering the perceptions of students in evaluating curriculum (Wakefield and Pumfrey).

Glatthorn and Jailall discuss specific elements of the curriculum to consider during evaluation:

1.       Units

2.       Tests

3.       Curriculum

4.       Scope and sequence.

For each of these element, Glatthorn and Jailall suggest looking at the big picture and emphasize the evaluating the desired outcomes for units of instruction. They suggest reconsidering the objectives in a given unit and weighing the assessments accordingly. By doing this, it is easier for teachers to assess the effectiveness of their instruction in relation to the big picture – the educational goals they target with every unit of the curriculum.

As an educator in today’s society, I want to know how well each unit relates to my students; I believe that this plays a pivotal role in my instructional effectiveness. Wakefield and Pumfrey share this view. The results of their educational research conclude that student views prove “both illuminative and valuable” (88). To achieve the desired instructional results, it’s important to consider whether the curriculum truly reaches the student body.

Illuminating and Improving National Curriculum Development: Students’ Perceptions and Suggestions. A Pilot Study in a State Secondary School

Peter Wakefield* and D. Pumfrey

Educational Review

Vol. 61, No. 1, February 2009, 63–83

Academic Premier

Curriculum Evaluation

Wayne W. Welch

Review of Educational Research
Vol. 39, No. 4, Science and Mathematics Education (Oct., 1969), pp. 429-443

JSTOR

Enrichment and Remediation

As a first-year teacher, I’ve struggled to develop lessons which meet the needs of every student. In my 9^th grade language arts courses, some students read at an elementary level, while others have progressed beyond the regular curriculum.

I have modified my approach more often as the year has progressed, and over the course of the school year, I have learned a couple things about enrichment and remediation:

1)      Students learn more effectively when they’re engaged.

2)      I need to adjust my instructional approach if students aren’t engaged.

I have a co-teacher in certain hours, and she helps greatly with coming up with ideas for remediation. She will think of an alternative approach to teaching a lesson or suggest ways to lighten the load for some students to make a difficult concept less overwhelming.

I have also attempted various enrichment strategies. I have added challenge questions to increase the critical thinking skills of my more advanced students. I have also provided selected students with the opportunity to conduct independent research when they completed a lesson early.

I want to follow a blogger’s advice: “By meeting students where they are in relation to their ability to process and use new information, we insure they stay motivated to learn what we are teaching to them.” It just takes time to understand enough about my students and the curriculum to anticipate their level with a particular lesson.

I’ll also need to learn how to communicate my curriculum well enough to the students that they can see relationships between the content they are learning and the rest of the curriculum. The first thing students ask when they enter the classroom is, “What are we doing today?” By reinforcing the foundation of my curriculum with remediation and challenging the students to think critically about the concepts we are covering, I will become more effective as an educator.

http://learningtocollaborate.blogspot.com/2009/12/enrichment-versus-remediation.html

http://www.idg-ed.com/pages/newsletter-articles/remediation---enrichment.php

Cross-Curricular Instruction

Cross-curricular alignment is promoted as beneficial for students. For example, Discovery Education highlights a successful program with the DeKalb County School District, which targeted the subject area of science in grades 3-5:

http://static.discoveryeducation.com/feeds/www/media/pdf/Case-Study/DeKalb%20Case%20Study.pdf

Through the development of this program, science scores rose between five and ten percent over a three year period. The science curriculum was mapped alongside the English-Language Arts curriculum so that science skills were reinforced during literacy instruction.

At the secondary level, however, I believe that cross-curricular alignment is a much more arduous process. When students reach high school, the content in each subject area increases in depth, and not every teacher comes equipment with the ability to teach effectively in multiple contents.

While it’s necessary for disciplines to work together to create cohesive programs of study, I believe that such programs should be developed in a cautionary manner. Through cross-curricular instruction, we attempt to address recurring gaps in our students’ education. In the field of mathematics, one of the most frequently tested areas is slope. In language arts, figurative language tends to become problematic.

Unfortunately, while it’s frequently asked of special educators, not everyone is equipped to teach multiple subjects, and ineffective cross-curricular instruction may just add to the confusion. I can only imagine my high school science teachers explain and evaluate a figurative interpretation of photosynthesis.

http://www.eduplace.com/rdg/res/literacy/interd0.html

Program Development

Program development, including both program renewal and program restructuring, can be a useful process in times of change. Because the American educational system is anticipating one of the greatest shifts in some time with the impending Common Core Standards, schools nationwide are developing programs of study across the curriculum.

KSDE has provided schools with a transition timeline to help district with program development:

http://www.ksde.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=GaIRfIyArV0%3D&tabid=1696&mid=11371

In a four-phrase process, districts are asked to maintain use of the state standards through the 2014-2015 school year as state assessments  incorporate an escalating number of questions to target items from the new standards.

Textbook publishers are also gearing up for change in hopes to support districts with program development. Pearson Education, for instance, redesigned their website to publicize the “unmatched rigor” of their new programs:

http://edreformer.com/2011/01/pearson-supports-transition-to-common-core/

The process a district chooses to take, however, should vary according to the needs and supports they have available. Have they continually performed well in recent assessments? Does the district need improvement in specific areas? Can the current curriculum be modified to meet the new standards, or would the district be best served to begin at square one?

Regardless of the selected approach, a district will need to provide supports to assist in the collaborative effort of program development. Staff will need a clear understanding of any major changes in the standards. Teachers will need time to collaborate as they attempt to address these changes. A clear timeline, such as the one provided by the state, will also ease the process and hold individuals accountable as the district works to develop its programs of study.

Vision and Goals

In education today, schools develop a vision statement to set the foundation for the development and improvement of educational goals. The entire program should build upon this foundation and remain true to the vision.

At my school, we follow the district vision, as communicated through our strategic plan:

Building on our culturally diverse community, USD#445 will prepare all students for life-long learning by providing resources for a comprehensive quality education in a safe environment that promotes high academic achievement and responsible citizenship in a global society.

The following resource, a company offering training in leadership, suggests that visioning should be the first step in strategic planning:
<http://www.e-volution-training.co.uk/the-importance-of-vision-c55.html>

For some reason, we seem to have a separate focus in my school district: college and career-readiness. This focus is emphasized through our implementation of cross-curricular programs through the technical education department. This, in my mind, seems to fit more with the goals of our school.

The following website discusses the importance of developing a clear mission and vision for any organization and suggests that an organization should focus on a polished vision, reflective of the values of that organization:
<http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_90.htm>

With this in mind, I can see that my district has a clear focus; however, this focus isn’t reflective of the vision we have developed.

Curriculum Revision and Textbook Adoption

KSDE Mathematics Curriculum:

This resource provides information regarding revisions to the Kansas curriculum in mathematics. It states that the most recent state mathematics curriculum revisions took place in 1993, 1999, and 2003. The first revision stemmed from a Kansas State Board of Education motion for improvement in 1989 and served as a basis for future revisions.

If the revision cycle, as mentioned in the text, remained consistent, additional revisions would have occurred in 2009. The curriculum did not update at that time; rather, the state seems to be waiting for the Common Core Standards to conduct revisions to the state curriculum, which helps to explain the change in pattern.

<http://www.cvilleschools.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.ksde.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=9Of%252f53hRla8%253d%26tabid=1678%26mid=5716>

North Carolina Textbook Selection Guide for English Language Arts:
Chapter 5 says, “Textbooks are not in the place of primacy they once occupied, and they may no longer be the gatekeepers of knowledge” (58). Our generation has an abundance of resources to utilize for instruction.
In my perspective, textbooks should serve as a resource for instruction. And while a textbook may provide a foundation for our instruction, I struggle to see the textbook as a well-rounded, all-inclusive resource. We should try to find texts to match the district’s curriculum and vision for instruction; however, it’s impossible to find a single textbook to effectively accomplishes every goal.

The Department of Public Instruction for the state of North Carolina guide for textbook selection has a different view, as it discusses the concept. Page 2 reads, “The criteria for review can apply to materials for all aspects of the curriculum.” They want a textbook to serve as a resource for everything. I can’t help but question how effectively a single textbook can achieve this purpose.

<http://www.cvilleschools.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/curriculum/languagearts/middlegrades/2005textbookbrochure.pdf>

In the field of education, with national standards looming and accountability at an all-time high, school districts will soon face the responsibilities associated with updating curricula. Additionally, districts need to  anticipate another significant shift: revisions to the systems of accountability they have grown accustomed to using.

What should districts do to prepare? Glatthorn and Jailall suggest retooling curriculum and instructional programs to ensure a greater focus on both accountability and learning. They state that the role of the principal is beginning to tilt, including an increased role in both curriculum development and the development of instructional leadership.

But with this increased focus on curriculum development, accountability, and instructional leadership, there are a number of other issues to consider. What should the revised curricula incorporate? How will this compare with previous curricula? Who will be responsible for developing the new curriculum in each course? How much focus should we place on testing?

In exploring these issues, I found varied perspectives. The Guardian, A British publication, discusses a lack of facts and other vital knowledge that was overlooked in previous national standards. An American blog discusses a decrease in creativity as we place a greater focus on meeting the grade.

Regardless of what our new national standards include, districts and building leaders will continually influence what we teach and how we teach it. If the standards require that we teach an array of facts, districts will need to evaluate the standards to develop specific benchmarks to target these standards. These will guide the teachers as they develop lessons to teach the benchmarks in an effective manner.

I anticipate that we may lose something in the area of creativity, but effective teachers can adjust their practices to provide students with an opportunity for enrichment. And as we adjust to the new standards, we'll learn to incorporate more opportunities to increase student creativity.


Article from a British publication:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jan/20/national-curriculum-review-facts-and-vital-knowledge?commentpage=2#start-of-comments

Blog entry about NCLB vs. Creativity:
http://peterpappas.blogs.com/copy_paste/2010/07/as-nclb-narrows-the-curriculum-creativity-declines.html