At this point, there are a few major criteria that I know will be needed for my ID model:
1. FEA is critical. Needs should be determined and analyzed before creation of a district-wide ELA curriculum.
2. Design and development likely will run together, as the time allotted for the ELA teachers/others to create the curriculum will be limited. This may be somewhat like rapid prototyping, in that something is created immediately and then revised until it's what is the desired product.
3. Communication will be extremely important.
4. Implementation will also be key.
5. Ideally, summative evaluation will be involved, but typically a district can only afford so much time spent on editing and revising. Formative evaluation is also very important, and this will likely influence the outcomes a lot more (see item #2).
I will keep thinking about how this process will be represented, as it is fairly large in scope, even with a very specific outcome.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Making Change
Obviously, the creation and implementation of a new curriculum would be a major change in any school district. The gatekeepers would likely be the superintendent, the school board, and possibly anyone with a post of or similar to "district curriculum coordinator." These are the individuals who ultimately decide whether the change will happen, even though they have little or nothing to do with the implementation.
School-level administration would be next in line. This would involve principal, assistant principal(s), any reading coordinators, etc. The school's media specialist(s) should also be involved, as they could assist greatly with selection of appropriate materials. They may also be the ones that are gatekeepers to the school's resources, such as a computer lab.
The ELA department would be next, headed by the chairperson (or chairpersons, if applicable). They should be heavily involved in the creation of the new curriculum, as they are also the ones responsible for implementation. The department chair(s) will likely have mandatory involvement, and may belong also in the second tier of this described chain of command. This process may or may not involve the entire department initially, depending on when the curriculum is created and implemented. If time for creation of the curriculum is only in the summer, volunteers will be needed to assemble everything. Hopefully, these volunteers will also have a more vested interest in creating an effective curriculum than if everyone was mandated to be involved. Teachers that are reluctant to change could be very resistant in making a shift from the familiar to the new, even if it may benefit them and their students.
The school-level administrators and the ELA department chair(s) would be the ones that should initially gain the knowledge about why this change is needed. Although he administrators can disseminate the information to ELA teachers, the department chair(s) is likely to have the most clout with them, and would be able to best persuade them that change is needed. The decision process, as mentioned above, would involve at least ELA department volunteers to create an aligned, standardized, and uniform curriculum, while the entire department is responsible for implementation. This would be overseen by both school-level and district-level administrators. Confirmation would occur after the entire curriculum has been accepted as part of the school culture and has been in place, likely for several years.
There are many other factors to consider when attempting to make this change in the particular school I'm examining. The school is in the suburbs, but it is a public school with an urban population. Accommodations would need to be addressed in the curriculum for the range of student abilities, including the approximate third of the students that are identified as having special needs (IEPs, 504 plans, etc.). Resources and funding (or lack of both) are major factors to consider, as they will affect how teachers will be compensated for their time when writing the new curriculum, and what they will be able to use to implement it. The school board and superintendent, although in charge of the school, may not understand completely its student population, which could be a barrier to the success of the change. Implementation may also be difficult with the aforementioned teachers who are complacent with the status quo and feel no need to change their pedagogy to suit a new curriculum. Even teachers who are interested in effective implementation will need to devote a great deal of personal time and energy to familiarize themselves with the new curriculum and associated materials.
School-level administration would be next in line. This would involve principal, assistant principal(s), any reading coordinators, etc. The school's media specialist(s) should also be involved, as they could assist greatly with selection of appropriate materials. They may also be the ones that are gatekeepers to the school's resources, such as a computer lab.
The ELA department would be next, headed by the chairperson (or chairpersons, if applicable). They should be heavily involved in the creation of the new curriculum, as they are also the ones responsible for implementation. The department chair(s) will likely have mandatory involvement, and may belong also in the second tier of this described chain of command. This process may or may not involve the entire department initially, depending on when the curriculum is created and implemented. If time for creation of the curriculum is only in the summer, volunteers will be needed to assemble everything. Hopefully, these volunteers will also have a more vested interest in creating an effective curriculum than if everyone was mandated to be involved. Teachers that are reluctant to change could be very resistant in making a shift from the familiar to the new, even if it may benefit them and their students.
The school-level administrators and the ELA department chair(s) would be the ones that should initially gain the knowledge about why this change is needed. Although he administrators can disseminate the information to ELA teachers, the department chair(s) is likely to have the most clout with them, and would be able to best persuade them that change is needed. The decision process, as mentioned above, would involve at least ELA department volunteers to create an aligned, standardized, and uniform curriculum, while the entire department is responsible for implementation. This would be overseen by both school-level and district-level administrators. Confirmation would occur after the entire curriculum has been accepted as part of the school culture and has been in place, likely for several years.
There are many other factors to consider when attempting to make this change in the particular school I'm examining. The school is in the suburbs, but it is a public school with an urban population. Accommodations would need to be addressed in the curriculum for the range of student abilities, including the approximate third of the students that are identified as having special needs (IEPs, 504 plans, etc.). Resources and funding (or lack of both) are major factors to consider, as they will affect how teachers will be compensated for their time when writing the new curriculum, and what they will be able to use to implement it. The school board and superintendent, although in charge of the school, may not understand completely its student population, which could be a barrier to the success of the change. Implementation may also be difficult with the aforementioned teachers who are complacent with the status quo and feel no need to change their pedagogy to suit a new curriculum. Even teachers who are interested in effective implementation will need to devote a great deal of personal time and energy to familiarize themselves with the new curriculum and associated materials.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
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.
(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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)