Curriculum Design and Alignment

Have you ever administered a district-mandated assessment to students and said to yourself (and possibly others), “Who made this and what were they thinking?”  or “My kids weren’t ready for this because I haven’t covered part of the material yet.”  Or how about, “The sequencing is out of order, students can’t possibly pass this without knowing (that)!”  These thoughts are just a few that many educators hear in the teacher’s lounge after administering benchmark assessments.  It is not uncommon to hear these remarks, but what does ring true is that there is some disconnect between curriculum design and alignment and assessment.  C. White, a director for secondary learning with nearly thirty years of experience in education and K. Kelley, a teacher with seven years of classroom experience were interviewed about their perspective on curriculum design and alignment.

How Curriculum Design Decisions are Made

To get a better idea about their perception in regard to how curriculum decisions are made, the following questions were posed: 1) What do you know about the curriculum design process? 2) Is our district-wide curriculum vertically aligned to ensure that standards progress logically from grade to grade?  3) Are teachers well-versed in assessment vocabulary?  4) Can we identify any gaps?

C. White shared the process that the district uses to design curriculum.  The Chief Academic Officer decides on a framework like Understanding By Design (UbD).  Departments are charged with

researching best practices and creating unit maps that follow a natural logistical sequence.  The plan is presented to the deputy superintendent and many discussions ensue about implementation.  Once the final approval has been granted, teachers are then trained during district PLCs. From a teacher’s perspective, K. Kelley’s view is that “the state makes the decision about what will be taught at each grade level.  People in the district who are in charge of certain subjects then make unit maps.  Sometimes they ask us for input, sometimes they don’t (K. Kelley, personal communication, July 22, 2016).”

When both were asked about vertical alignment, C. White shared that “for Common Core Math, all the standards were tied together from grade to grade based on the eight mathematical practices.  Now that North Carolina has reverted back to the five content standards from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) for high school mathematics, it is difficult to vertically align the K-8 math curriculum to high school mathematics.  We are now having to look at Math I because it was highly aligned to eighth grade math (C. White, personal communication, July 26, 2016).”   K. Kelley responded “for English Language Arts (ELA), we have the same focus from kindergarten through high school.  You can see the progression in standards from one grade to the next.  As far as our district curriculum, we have to make sure that we talk with each other because some ELA teachers, like in this building, want to use the novels that other grade levels have reserved and that creates conflict.  The district does not tell us which books to use for each grade level, which is why we run into this problem (K. Kelley, personal communication, July 22, 2016).”

C. White stated, “Teachers are not well versed in assessment vocabulary because there are too many acronyms.  When new people come into our district after working in another school district, they may be familiar with a certain acronym but it means something different (C. White, personal communication, July 25, 2016).”  An example of what C. White is referring to is “AG”.  This currently is used by the testing department and stands for Assessment Guides, but it is also the label given to identify students as Academically Gifted.  K. Kelley noted “any vocabulary related to testing can be confusing unless you examine the context.  If we are talking about universal words that are

common across all assessments, then yes, I believe teachers understand what those words mean.  For example, explain, generate, list…any word associated with Bloom’s Taxonomy.  If you are talking

about academic vocabulary, I think every teacher is well versed in words that are specific to their content area (K. Kelley, personal communication, July 22, 2016).”   Just from these two comments, one can clearly see that there are two different levels of thinking as it relates to assessment vocabulary.  C. White was then asked about how the curriculum development team ensures that academic vocabulary is addressed when designing curricula and when determining standards to be assessed.   Her reply was that “when unit maps are made, content-specific vocabulary is included.  Teachers are expected to use the vocabulary during instruction as well as use literacy strategies to teach vocabulary as necessary (C. White, personal communication, July 25, 2016).”

It seems that it is easier to detect instructional gaps in some content areas than in others.  C. White explains that now that the math standards in North Carolina have changed, “you can see an obvious gap as indicated in the specifications chart.  Students in fifth grade have little exposure to statistics or geometry, then all of a sudden they are exposed to it again in sixth grade (C. White, personal communication, July 25, 2016).”  Only 2-7% of the fifth grade End of Grade (EOG) assessment is geometry, then up to 12% of the sixth grade EOG is comprised of geometry.  This leads up to 25% of the eighth grade EOG assessing students in geometry.  The challenge for school districts across the state is to create district curricula such that elementary students are equipped to handle geometric concepts once they enter middle school.  K. Kelley mentioned, “the absence of teaching specific old fashioned grammar is a serious gap.  One of our content standards is writing.  ELA teachers have to fit grammar in as we teach the writing process.  I feel that if this were addressed before students come to middle school, we would have better writers.  Now that the state doesn’t assess writing until English II, I don’t think some teachers take writing that serious (K. Kelley, personal communication, July 22, 2016).”

Formative and Summative Assessments and Alignment

To help teachers connect assessments to what is actually being taught, “teachers work in PLCs to work on learning the standards and the alignment with the curriculum.  This helps teachers to clearly understand the connection between formative assessments and curriculum standards and between summative assessments and curriculum.  Teachers learn how to use the strategies from the unit maps to provide instruction and to correct instruction.  Curriculum coaches may work 1-1 with specific teachers at different schools and also work with groups of teachers during academies.  When teachers are included in the curriculum vetting process, this allows them to learn strategies to formatively assess students (C. White, personal communication, July 25, 2016).”   “I think most teachers know the difference between formative and summative assessments, but not all of those who are new [to teaching] understand the importance of formative assessments. You have to be able to check what students know along the way so that you can help students understand before the summative assessment.  It doesn’t have to be a quiz all the time.  Just something as simple as an exit ticket or thumbs up, thumbs down can be a formative assessment.  Formative assessments help to check for understanding and help teachers know how to remediate.  This is why I do project-based learning. Summative is final (K. Kelley, personal communication, July 22, 2016).”  A key understanding that was missing from this interview is the fact that the district for which C. White and K. Kelley work provides unit assessments and benchmark tests as formative assessments.  These assessments are meant to provide critical data for intervention and instructional improvement.  Some principals are given discretion as to whether these assessments should be administered.  One argument in support of the use of formative assessments is related to teacher experience and/or EVAAS effectiveness.  For a school with mostly inexperienced teachers, the formative assessments provided by the district allow teachers and school officials to closely monitor student progress as compared to other schools in the district.  District level leaders can also target schools that may need additional support or even review unit maps to make adjustments in the instructional sequence.    

To ensure that what teachers are teaching is truly aligned with content standards, “lots of information and work goes into the unit maps.  We make sure that unit maps are accessible and help teachers unpack the standards.  We make every effort to make sure that we communicate clearly what the resources are and what teachers need in order to teach (C. White, personal communication, July 25, 2016).”  “We have conversations in our district meetings about the standards and how we plan to teach them.  The administrators and members of the leadership team are constantly reminding us about formatively assessing students.  We get feedback on our walkthroughs about any formative assessment tools or techniques they observed. I make suggestions to my colleagues about things they can try.  Some teachers that need more help have the support of the instructional facilitator and the curriculum specialists (K. Kelley, personal communication, July 22, 2016).”   C. White argues, “Teachers do not understand all the methods to do formative assessments.  They fail to ask how they can measure student understanding each day.  Some neglect the importance of essential questions.  It’s like having a car in neutral and trying to move forward and catch up with the others at the same time (C. White, personal communication, July 25, 2016).” 

Oversight at the District Level

District leaders who are responsible for each content area are charged with making sure that quality unit maps are in place to guide instruction at the school level.  Specialists within content-specific departments assist with the development of the unit maps including the selection of resources to assist teachers with implementing the curriculum. Through the vetting process, district teams utilize feedback from teachers to make decisions about the scope and sequencing of the curriculum.  The executive leadership team regularly reviews data and meets with principals especially when data indicates that there may be a significant instructional problem.  Oftentimes, the directors for certain content areas meet with principals and provide support by observing instruction, talking with teachers, and providing feedback.  The ELA and math departments in the district where the two interviewees work are receptive to feedback from teachers and use that input to make curricular adjustments. 

Final Thoughts

Having worked with district leaders in designing a literacy unit for mathematics, I see the process of designing curriculum and aligning it to formative and summative assessments as the vehicle to ensuring student success.  However, school and district leaders must distinguish between requiring benchmarks for schools and for teachers.  Currently, top-performing schools do not have to administer unit assessments, whereas schools that are not low performing but have inexperienced staff are given an option to give district-designed formative assessments.  Unfortunately, some of these same schools are seeing a decline in student achievement.  In my opinion, if we are not using these resources, we may be setting ourselves up for failure.  I think that principals should further differentiate for their schools by having teachers to decide which unit assessments they will give or even by requiring struggling teachers to administer unit assessments.  It is better to be preventative and make adjustments than to get summative data back that shows further decline.  Then it will be too late to ask, “Where was the breakdown?”  By ensuring that teachers are all in one accord with curriculum, instruction, and assessments, districts can close the school performance gap that pits school against school.  Would it not be great to have a district where all the schools were high performing?

References

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

Armstrong, P. (n.d.). Bloom's Taxonomy. Retrieved July 26, 2016, from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/

English Language Arts Standards. (c2016). Retrieved July 26, 2016, from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/

Krajcik, Joseph S.; and Blumenfeld, Phyllis C.. Project-Based Learning. Cambridge University Press, 2005. Cambridge Books Online. Cambridge University Press.http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816833.020

McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. P. (2013). Essential questions: Opening doors to student understanding.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (c2016). Retrieved July 26, 2016, from http://www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Standards_and_Positions/PSSM_ExecutiveSummary.pdf

North Carolina Testing Program: Technical Information 2013-14 and Beyond. (2016, March). Retrieved July 26, 2016, from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/testing/technicalnotes

Standards for Mathematical Practice. (c2016). Retrieved July 26, 2016, from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice/

Wiggins, G. P., McTighe, J., & Wiggins, G. P. (2012). The Understanding by design guide to advanced concepts in creating and reviewing units. Alexandria, Va: ASCD.

Many Departments, One Organization: Reflections from the IHM Project

Recently, I was asked to be part of a team that was charged with developing a comprehensive technology plan for a private religious school- Immaculate Heart of Mary Catholic School (IHM), located in High Point, North Carolina.  At first the project seemed overwhelming, but as we all dove in I could see just how complex major projects can be within an organization.  For the purpose of this blog, I will reflect on my experience and compare the experience with central service operations for a school district.

Working Independently and Interdependently

School systems, like any organization, are comprised of many departments, but what really goes on to make the organization function almost seamlessly? Individuals and teams that  are charged with specific tasks, must all work independently and interdependently to contribute to the overall success of the organization.  When I first saw the work that needed to be done to create a technology plan for IHM, I immediately thought about my experience and how I might be able to contribute to a team.  My colleagues and I were divvied up and we volunteered to be a part of one of the following teams: Hardware and Software, Professional Development, Classroom Expectations and Evaluation.  I chose to be a part of the Professional Development team.  As we worked on what the professional development needs of the school should be, we quickly discovered that we needed more information from each of the other three teams.  The information we needed helped us to determine what professional development should be offered, how it should be delivered, and within what time frame.  Our discussions with the other teams led to further discourse about overlapping ideas and components to include in the plan.  For instance, the Classroom Expectations team also found it necessary to include lesson plans and we mimicked the evaluation tool from another group as a means to measure progress. This sharing across teams gave perspective as to how departments can operate independently but must work interdependently to help the organization function in unison.

Relating to a School District

The mission statement of the school in which I work is simple- Creativity, Collaboration, Communication and Community.  These four words were evident throughout the project development process.  As a team we had to be creative in how to devise a differentiated professional development plan that would address the technology learning needs of staff that ranged from novice to advanced.  School districts are constantly having to reinvent or rebrand to meet the needs of staff, students and the community.  This requires a great deal of creativity and commitment from staff to ensure that a comprehensive plan is presented and implemented with fidelity.  Utilizing the assistance of others requires collaboration and constant communication and is essential in guaranteeing that a project conforms to the expectations of the organization.  After my team discussed the details of our part of the IHM project, we agreed to capitalize on the strengths of each member and formed pairs so that we could focus on specific school levels that were comparable to those at IHM.  We worked in pairs to develop the timeline and lesson plans for K-2, 3-5, and 6-8 and then convened to determine a logical sequence.  Departments within school districts often capitalize on the skills of employees and this is not limited to central office personnel.  There are times when persons with specialized expertise are sought out to assist the district with acquiring the knowledge needed to complete district initiatives.  Just as my team had to value each other’s skills and used those capabilities to devise a comprehensive plan, school districts utilize the expertise of employees to solve complex tasks.  Once the project was complete, each team had to present their component to a member of the board of directors.  This is similar to a school district presenting a strategic plan to the community.  Questions from the board members were asked and responses helped to clarify ambiguous portions of the plan.  School boards undergo a similar process when revising school board policies and strategic plans.

Lessons Learned

Upon completion of the IHM project, there were several important takeaways that I will use when involved with future projects.   1) Use technology as a means to accomplish and supplement organizational goals.  We utilized Google platforms to carry out our work and WebEx to meet when face-to-face meetings were impossible.  Some of us even took advantage of the free Wi-Fi that some restaurants offer to plan together.  2) Make sure the plan is easy to follow.   Considering the audience that would be using the IHM technology plan, we were deliberate in how we structured the professional development portion.  So, despite the user’s comfort level, he/she would be able to progressively fine-tune his/her instructional practice.  3) Offer “right now” support.  This allows individuals to have a starting point and eliminates the barrier of procrastination and the dilemma of where to start.  We provided lesson plans that aligned to the Common Core State Standards and research-based instructional technology practices.  4) Include research-based or evidence-based material.  We shared the SAMR model to assist the school with identifying the level of technology integration currently being used, and also to know what technology integration should look like at each stage of implementation.   5) Respect and value the ideas and opinions of others.  By nature, I am observant but can be quite opinionated.  I generally listen to what others have to say and start formulating my ideas.  This project allowed me to really analyze what others were saying so that I could assist my team with organizing details in a clear, concise manner.  As a result, I was able to walk away with a product that I could use at my own school. 

We have all heard the idiom about being “on the outside looking in.”  My experience with this project was just the opposite.  When you are on the outside looking in, you are left to your own interpretation about what truly goes on within an organization.  However, being on the inside looking out, you realize that your role is one link to an intricate master plan that will enlighten those on the outside. 

References

Introduction to the SAMR Model. (n.d.). Retrieved July 24, 2016, from https://www.commonsensemedia.org/videos/introduction-to-the-samr-model 

Professional Development: A Need for Differentiation

Have you ever had to attend professional development and found yourself bored completely out of your mind because the material presented was irrelevant or because you were already knowledgeable about the content?  This is the perception of some individuals within organizations, specifically in education.  In North Carolina, K-8 teachers are required to earn three literacy Continuing Education Units (CEUs) prior to renewing their license every five years.  This is in addition to three CEUs in the content area and two CEUs in general.  Though it is ultimately the licensed individual’s responsibility to acquire renewal credits, school and district administrators usually provide professional development modules to support employees in meeting requirements for licensure renewal.  However, teachers seldom have the opportunity to weigh in on what they need to grow as professionals and are subjected to pre-planned professional development activities that do not account for what they already know and are planned oftentimes based on summative test score data.  Differentiated professional development at the school level requires a delicate balance of content that aligns with school initiatives and state and district requirements and also meets the learning needs of staff.

Background Information

The school being referenced has only been open for three years and like many small innovative schools, it was not short of challenges.  Initially the school did not have several key support staff and the middle and high school sectors had varying needs.  The existing staff had to encumber many roles that included providing for the academic needs of multiple grade levels while honoring the school’s mission and vision statements. To support the vision for the school, Art Costa’s Habits of Mind was used as a framework to facilitate the way students and staff interacted within the school setting.  Much like other small schools in the district, the “newness” attracted many charter school families and other parents who wanted a different option for their children.  The year-round schedule was appealing to most families and the opportunity to be a founding member attracted highly supportive and enthusiastic staff.  Once opened, the school became a major competitor amongst the other secondary magnet schools in the district.  As a result, an emphasis on the instructional focus, teacher activism, and the importance to remain competitive through rigorous course offerings continues to be a driving force behind the need for professional development.  To gain insight about professional development qualitative data from interviewing a principal, R. Melvin, who has 22 years of experience in education, and V. Blue, a teacher who has 17 years in education, specifically in Exceptional Children.  Each provides their opinion about the current status of professional development at the school and district levels, the process by which professional development is planned and implemented as well as how it can be improved.

The School’s Perspective

This small innovative magnet school in Durham Public Schools is continuing to address the issue of professional development that both meets the needs of staff and supports the school’s instructional focus.  In regard to professional development offered at the district level, R. Melvin stated that “workshops are loosely aligned with content areas.  The district covers all areas but not equally. Heavier emphasis is given to literacy and mathematics (R. Melvin, personal communication, June 16, 2016).”  In regards to the school level, “information is really good but not implemented well or at all. For example, Habits of Mind was pushed heavily at first but has become very relaxed, partly due to turnover.  It’s hard to get new people on board (V. Blue, personal communication, June 23, 2016).”  Both interviewees agree that all staff has access to ongoing, quality professional development that extends beyond workshops.  L. Blue said “through district offerings and in-house” while R. Melvin noted, “PLCs are a huge part of this.”   Interviewees shared their perspective on how professional development was monitored so that teachers have access and those with performance issues could receive the help and guidance they need. The principal stated that professional development needs were monitored “formally through administrators and informally through leadership team members (R. Melvin, June 16, 2016).”  The teacher said “there is support to make sure that they get the PD they need.  Otherwise, teachers are expected to reflect and select what they need according to their interests as well as guided if something was necessary.  This is done via administrators and teacher leaders. Mentoring is a plus to support novice teachers (V. Blue, personal communication, June 23,2016).”

Determining the Need for Professional Development

When the principal and a teacher were interviewed, both stated that professional development needs were established based on a variety of data points and not just summative test scores.  “Walkthrough data, teacher input and test scores all play a role in identifying specific professional development needs of staff  (R. Melvin, personal communication, June 16, 2016).”   The principal also stated that “summative test score data will always play a part in determining professional development needs” because this data often dictates instructional needs that have to be addressed in the school improvement plan, which is a state mandate. The teacher responded, “yes, the PD plan addresses how to meet the specific needs of students but we have a lot of barriers (V. Blue, personal communication, June 23, 2016).” When asked why a particular workshop or training was chosen over another, R. Melvin reiterated the fact that professional development at her school was “based on the needs of the staff.  If staff members are already knowledgeable then they do not have to spend time in PD.” She continued by saying that “priorities for PD have been given by the district but there is no rationale.  The reasoning is not clear and priorities are conflicting.  This is confusing for teachers and administrators and makes it hard to prioritize for teachers when administrators don’t know (R. Melvin, personal communication, June 16, 2016).”  V. Blue responded specifically about why internal professional development was prioritized over other offerings and mentioned that professional development was provided to “support the overall theme for the school and to build the culture and educational environment that we are trying to cultivate (V. Blue, personal communication, June 23, 2016).”  Both were asked about specific student outcomes that professional development would impact. R. Melvin shared that “student achievement would ultimately be impacted but also result in better students, better people, and better citizens (R. Melvin, personal communication, June 16, 2016).”  V. Blue elaborated a little further and explained that student outcomes as the result of professional development would “create independent learners, thinkers and leaders.  The cross-curricular collaboration between core and elective classes will eliminate silos” and force creativity that will create connections for 21^st century learners.

It is evident that the school’s culture plays a viable role in professional development offerings to support the educational setting as well as the magnet theme. 

What’s Working Well

The school offers job-embedded professional development during the school day in a teachers-teaching-teachers format.  Small groups of teachers are strategically grouped based on their current level of knowledge and/or need and are released to attend the professional development for the entire day. Half of the day is spent on specific areas of need such as differentiation, vocabulary development, etc., and participating in learning walks encumbers the other half of the day.  Professional development sessions are the result of teachers advocating for their needs as well as trends documented via walkthrough data. The learning walks have proved to be valuable in giving observed teachers immediate feedback from their colleagues as well as allow peers to see exemplary teaching and learning.  After the group has completed the learning walk, they debrief and start planning how they can use, adapt, or modify exemplary practices in their own class.  The principal and teacher who were interviewed both declared that having a cohesive leadership team helps to ensure that teachers are able to implement and formatively assess what they are being asked to do as a result of professional development.  However, their opinions varied as it relates to the use of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) as a means to support and sustain ongoing learning.  The principal indicated that PLCs are used to continue high quality professional development whereas the teacher stated that this was not necessarily the case.

Improvements

The principal noted that the leadership team “is moving towards differentiated professional development (R. Melvin, personal communication, June 13, 2016).”  Both interviewees agree that there is no reflection on whether test scores improved based on specific professional development.  This is an area of progress monitoring that needs strengthening. Frequent data dives to compare and contrast student and teacher performance should include both summative and formative data.  Data points should be used to support the ongoing needs of staff. Bowgen and Server (2014) remind us that “districts must gradually and systemically move from the one-shot, one-day, out-of-the-district workshops to job-embedded, teacher-led collaboration in which everyone’s learning style are to be conscientiously considered.” While honoring the expertise of staff and to build teacher capacity, professional development should be targeted and tiered using multiple data sources as a means to rationalize the need.  One qualitative data point used is the evaluation that teachers complete at the conclusion of in-house professional development. This feedback has been a catalyst for differentiating professional development much like teachers are expected to do in their classrooms and has prompted teachers to facilitate district workshops. 

To start the process of differentiating professional development, it is suggested that the school take the following action steps:

• Survey staff to determine their existing knowledge, needs and preferred format.  For example, if there is a need to learn more about classroom management, some may prefer a face-to-face workshop whereas another may need embedded job coaching.
• Identify qualified staff.  This would be an opportune time for staff to lead beyond the classroom or school building.  Furthermore, it is one way for educators to move towards the accomplished and distinguished categories on the North Carolina Teacher Evaluation rubric.  
• Devise a process to effectively monitor implementation and sustainability. The teacher interviewed pointed out that the professional development to sustain the instructional focus has seemingly fallen by the wayside and that new staff members have not bought into the Habits of Mind.
• Differentiate professional development by using an expedited release of responsibility model.  Bowgen and Server (2014) suggest the “I do”, “we do”, “you do” model to as a means to coach teachers with an emphasis on the “we do” to differentiate professional development.
• Determine the impact of professional development on student achievement.  According to the principal and teacher, this is not tracked; however, there should be processes in place to measure the impact of specific professional development on improving student achievement.

The conversation about professional development has come at a time when the school is now fully populated at each grade level with students and staff.  Since the school has a relatively low turnover rate, now is the time to concentrate efforts on sustaining what has already been implemented, get buy-in from all staff, and become a model institution for the district and state.  While school leaders work to build teacher capacity to be effective educators, differentiated professional development will be pivotal in the development of teacher efficacy from the classroom and beyond.

  

References

Bowgen, L., & Sever, K. (2014). Differentiated professional development in a professional learning community. Solution Tree Press.

Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (Eds.). (2008). Learning and leading with habits of mind: 16 essential characteristics for success. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

NCEES Wikispace North Carolina Educator Evaluation System. (n.d.). NCEES for Teachers. Retrieved 18July, 2016, from http://ncees.ncdpi.wikispaces.net/file/view/Teacher_Rubric%20fillable%2010.2.pdf/561103845/Teacher_Rubric%20fillable%2010.2.pdf

NC Public Schools. (c2016). Licensure. Retrieved 23 June, 2016, from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/licensure/update/

Teachingchannelorg. (2016). Teaching Channel. Retrieved 18 July, 2016, from https://www.teachingchannel.org/videos/the-learning-walk

Zdonek,Pauline. (2016, 15 January 2016). Why Don’t We Differentiate Professional Development?. [Weblog]. Retrieved 25 June 2016, from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/why-dont-we-differentiate-pd-pauline-zdonek

Images retrieved from:

https://ieanea.org/2014/12/12/free-professional-development-for-teachers/

www.amplify.com

www.evidencebasedteaching.org.au