Needling needs needed

There are several needs that should be addressed in my context. As mentioned before, the most obvious is test scores for the state of PA. The 2009 Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) reading results for 11th graders were that 31.1% of tested students scored at levels of proficient or above, but 63% of the tested students need to score proficient or higher in order to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).

(For my other needs, I am thinking about these as if the ELA curricula were not developed, and as if we are only starting to plan them now.)

Another need are standardized ELA curricula for the district. The district in my context did not have a standardized and aligned ELA curricula, and they needed to be in place.

Third is the issue of state-mandated, grade-specific ELA standards. PA has ELA standards established for the grades in which PSSA tests are administered: 3, 5, 8, and 11. Grade-specific standards need to be created to address grades K, 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12.

In terms of prioritizing these three major needs (and there are likely others), they all have their own costs to be met, and also would have costs if they were ignored. For the increase in PSSA scores, the costs would be revision of curricula, teacher time, student time, and costs associated with any intervention plans used to try to fix the problem. (I knew of at least three that were attempted in the five years that I was a teacher in this school.) The cost of ignoring the problem is probably the greatest out of all three needs: if the school does not meet AYP, it will be in danger of being taken over by the state. This restructuring process would cost the school money to send students elsewhere, and may cost teachers and administrators their jobs. Another important aspect that could be lost is teachers' academic freedom in being able to teach lessons that they have specially adapted for the school and its limited resources. Those teachers that are successful would be punished with the school as a whole because assessment of the school in this case relies only on PSSA scores, rather than individual student achievement or other measures of learning.

Creating grade-specific, aligned ELA curricula will take a great deal of teacher time out of the classroom. If teachers work on this during the summer, it is still their time that is spent, and they will need to be paid for it. Administrators that are involved will also need to spend their time/be compensated for their time working with the teachers. Teachers from all grades will need to be involved, as they are the ones most familiar with their resources, current lessons, and how they may address PA standards in their classrooms. Ignoring the need for curriculum development will prevent the schools from being consistent in what they teach, resulting in unevenly prepared students. Not connecting classroom pedagogy with state standards will also result in students being unprepared in their school and after graduation. Of course, students also will not be prepared to meet state standards, and the school will be going against NCLB and AYP guidelines.

Continuing to think about this from an FEA point of view, context of the school is extremely important. The development of curricula in a well-off or even somewhat decently funded district would be very different than what might take place in this lower-income urban district. Teacher and parent buy-in and support of developments is very important, especially when the school has a history of underperforming on PSSAs and other tests. Teachers need to see value in what they are doing in order to create curricula that meet standards but also are pedagogically sound and engaging for a student population that includes ELL/ESL, special education, and disadvantaged youth. There's a lot that would need to be considered contextually before launching into the actual curriculum writing and development.