Martin, D. S., Saif, P. S., & Thiel, L. (1987). Curriculum development: Who is involved and how. Educational Leadership, 44, 40–48.

• Research questions on national survey
  • What curriculum changes are needed at the district level?
  • Who at the district level should make decisions about curriculum development?
  • Who should be actively involved in curriculum development?
  • What are the advantages and disadvantages of having teachers participate in curriculum development?
  • What roles should administrators and parents play in curriculum development?
• Curriculum Development Process Model
  • Aimed at maximizing teacher involvement in curriculum development – 2 to 3 years and 10 steps:
    • Teacher committee – rationale and objectives – peer review
    • Revise rationale and objectives – form subcommittees if necessary
    • Materials and evaluation methods – peer review
    • Train selected pilot teachers and test the curriculum
    • New teacher committee collects and evaluate the pilot-test data
    • Revise committee based on pilot-test results
    • Present curriculum to administration and school board for final adoption
    • Pilot teachers become the trainers
    • Third committee revises curriculum and monitors the implementation
    • Higher-level training
• Findings
  • Teacher involvement is high
  • Do your own curriculum redesign is preferred method – followed by ‘hire a consultant’ and ‘use another district’s’
  • Little parental involvement – must be actively supported by the school
  • Use little use of research to implement curricular change

Brodhagen, B., Weilbacher, G., & Beane, J.  (1998). What We’ve Learned from “Living in the Future.”  In L. Beyer & M. Apple (Eds.) The Curriculum:  Problems, Politics, and Possibilities.  (2nd Edition).  Albany:  State University of New York Press.  pp. 117-133.

• Curriculum integration – definition
  • “… curriculum integration as something more than simply an instructional method. Rather we see it as a possibility for creating democratic classrooms in terms of both collaborative precesses and use of knowledge.” (Brodhagen, Weilbacher, & Beane, 1998, p.118)
  • “… curriculum be organized around themes found at the intersection of self/personal concerns of young people and issues affecting the “common good” in the larger world.” (Brodhagen, Weilbacher, & Beane, 1998, p.118)
  • “… planned and carried out based on questions and concerns of the your people and without regard for subject area lines.” (Brodhagen, Weilbacher, & Beane, 1998, p.118)
  • “… teachers must be careful not to cross the lines between this kind of authentic planning and that of illusory participation in which three is “engineered consent” toward acceptance of preconceived teacher ideas. Instead, the intent is to play a facilitative role with regard to concerns of young people, to help the see connections between their concerns and the larger world, and thus to bring the most powerful kind of meaning to the curriculum.” (Brodhagen, Weilbacher, & Beane, 1998, p.119)
• Planning the unit
  • Make a list of words or phrases you would use if asked to tell about yourself.
  • What questions or concerns do you have about yourself?
  • What questions or concerns do you have about the world you live in?
  • Find and group common questions and concerns.
  • Suggested activities that would inform about these questions and concerns.
  • What knowledge and skill are needed to answer these questions and concerns?
• Lessons learned
  • What are the problems when doing this kind of curriculum work?
    • A lot of work and time required + exhausting for teachers and students
    • Teachers need to give up a certain degree of controlled
    • “The teacher-controlled ‘empty-vessel’ analogy appears to be alive and well in the minds of many educators.(Brodhagen, Weilbacher, & Beane, 1998, p.127)
    • Lack of appropriate resources to support an integrative curriculum – they are always organized into separate subjects
  • What are the politics of doing this kind of curriculum?
    • Parents may think children are missing out
    • Lack of support from other teachers and administrators
  • What are the possibilities of this kind of curriculum?
    • Validation of self and experiences
    • Sense of control and ownership
    • Democracy in practice
  • “We believe they, like us, have had a profound experience forever changing the way they teach, rejecting how we were taught to teach, or the we were teaching as a result of the kind of texts being used or the teaching observed going around us.” (Brodhagen, Weilbacher, & Beane, 1998, p.132)

Darling-Hammond, L., Pecheone, R., Jaquith, A., Schultz, S., Walker, L., & Wei, R. C. (2010). Developing an internationally comparable balanced assessment system that supports high-quality learning. In National Conference on Next Generation K–12 Assessment Systems, Center for K–12 Assessment & Performance Management with the Education Commission of the States (ECS) and the Council of Great City Schools (CGCS), Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://k-12center.com/rsc/pdf/Darling-HammondPechoneSystemModel.pdf (Links to an external site.) (Please read to the end of p. 26)

• US lagging behind in curriculum design and implementation
  • “European and Asian nations that have steeply improved student learning have focused explicitly on creating curriculum guidance and assessments that focus on teaching central concepts in the disciplines in a thoughtfully organized way, as well explicitly higher‐order cognitive skills: the abilities to find and organize information to solve problems, frame and conduct investigations, analyze and synthesize data, apply learning to new situations, self‐monitor and improve one’s own learning and performance, communicate well in multiple forms, work in teams, and learn independently.” (Darling-Hammond, Pecheone, Jaquith, Schultz, Walker, & Wei, 2010, p.4)
• US mass testing hurts curriculum design
  • “Whereas U.S. tests rely primarily on multiple‐choice items that evaluate recall and recognition of discrete facts, examinations in most high‐ achieving countries use primarily open‐ended items that require students to analyze, apply knowledge, and write extensively.”  (Darling-Hammond, Pecheone, Jaquith, Schultz, Walker, & Wei, 2010, p.4)
  • “Because these assessments are embedded in the curriculum, they influence the day‐to‐day work of teaching and learning, focusing it on the use of knowledge to solve problems.” (Darling-Hammond, Pecheone, Jaquith, Schultz, Walker, & Wei, 2010, p.4)
• An Assessment System that Promotes High-Quality Learning
  • Priorities for Assessment
    • Assessments are grounded in a thoughtful, standards‐based curriculum and are managed as part of a tightly integrated system
    • Assessments include evidence of actual student performance on challenging tasks that evaluate standards of 21st century learning.
    • Teachers are integrally involved in the development of curriculum and the development and scoring of assessments
      • Assessments are structured to continuously improve teaching and learning.
      • Assessment systems are designed to emphasize the validity and quality of external assessment
      • Assessment and accountability systems use multiple measures to evaluate students and schools.
      • Assessment and accountability systems are used primarily for information and improvement.
• How to do it?
  • Curriculum must be explicit on what kind of learning is sought: usable knowledge
  • Learning that supports transfer
    • “Learning that supports transfer involves organizing facts around general principles and understanding their reach, understanding why things happen as they do, drawing explicit connections among ideas, evaluating ideas in ways that draw distinctions as well as identifying commonalities, having multiple opportunities to apply learning in deliberate practice under increasingly complex conditions, and receiving feedback around both thinking and performance that helps students develop metacognitive abilities (self‐regulated planning, learning and problem solving strategies, and reflection) that can drive further independent learning.” (Darling-Hammond, Pecheone, Jaquith, Schultz, Walker, & Wei, 2010, p.9)
  • Learning progression – roadmap for teaching
• Theory of Action
  • “Tests worth teaching to” (Resnick, 1987)
  • System must include
    • Summative tests that assess student progress and mastery of core concepts and critical transferable skills using a range of formats: selected‐response and constructed‐response items, and performance tasks, designed together to assess the full range of standards.
    • Formative assessment tools and supports, shaped around curriculum guidance that includes learning progressions.
    • Focused professional development around curriculum and lesson development as well as scoring and examination of student work
    • Reporting systems that provide first‐hand evidence of student performance (beyond scores), as well as aggregated scores by dimensions of learning, types of students, schools, and districts.
• Governmental Roles
  • Federal – general guidance and support for research
  • State – create standards and curriculum frameworks + assessments that compare initiatives
  • Districts and Schools – formative assessment + professional development
• Assessment System Operation
  • Develop curriculum frameworks
  • Create a digital curriculum and assessment library
  • Develop state and local assessments
  • Incorporate principles of universal design
  • Emphasis on evaluating student growth over time
• High-school level options for assessment
  • Course‐ or syllabus‐based systems
  • Standards‐driven systems
  • A mixed model
  • Develop moderation and auditing systems for teacher‐scored work
  • Provide time and training for teachers and school leaders
  • Develop technology to support the system
  • AI for scoring/assessing
• Multiple choice questions can be designed to assess much deeper knowledge
  • Who was president of the United States at the beginning of the Korean War?
    • a) John F. Kennedy
    • b) Franklin D. Roosevelt
    • c) Dwight Eisenhower
    • d) Harry Truman e) Don’t know
  • A feature common to the Korean War and the Vietnam War was that in both conflicts:
    • a) Soviet soldiers and equipment were tested against American soldiers and equipment.
    • b) The United States became militarily involved because of a foreign policy of containment. c) The final result was a stalemate; neither side gained or lost significant territory.
    • d) Communist forces successfully unified a divided nation.

McLaughlin, M., Glaab, L., & Carrasco, I. H. (2014). Implementing Common Core state standards in California: A report from the field. Palo Alto, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE). Retrieved from the PACE Website: Http://edpolicyinca. Org/publications/implementing-Common-Core-State-Standardscalifornia-Report-Field. Retrieved from http://www.edpolicyinca.org/sites/default/files/PACE%20CCSS%20McLaughlin.pdf

• Common Core State Standards (CCSS) – August of 2010
  • “The adoption and implementation of the CCSS coincides with the implementation of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF), which shifts responsibility and ac- countability in California’s education system from the state to local schools and school districts.” (McLaughlin, Glaab, & Carrasco, 2014, p.1)
• CCSS increased teacher collaboration
  • “For instance, practitioners across the state point to enhanced teacher collaboration as an immediate, constructive consequence of CCSS implementation, and under- score the many benefits of teachers working together to develop strategies and materials consistent with the CCSS.” (McLaughlin, Glaab, & Carrasco, 2014, p.4)
• Lack of time to implement CCSS & shortfalls in materials, capacity and preparation.
  • “As former state superintendent Bill Honig wrote, “The Common Core State Standards state what students should master, but they are not a curriculum. Jumping from the standards to create lesson plans misses a crucial middle step of developing a coherent curriculum…the complex work of creating a local curricular framework for the district.” (McLaughlin, Glaab, & Carrasco, 2014, p.5)
  • “I would like to see the state un- dertake a major teacher education initiative—that may be the most important component of Com- mon Core implementation in the long run.” (McLaughlin, Glaab, & Carrasco, 2014, p.8)
• Insufficient Professional Development
  • “At one professional development session, for example, teachers were asked if they knew what “project based learning” was. In a room of about 80 teachers, three raised their hands, and all three had been teaching for more than 15 years.” (McLaughlin, Glaab, & Carrasco, 2014, p.11)
• Implications for state and local action
  • Curation of CCSS compatible materials.
  • Quality professional development for Teachers and Administrators
  • More and better communication with parents and the public.
  • Increased financial and political support for COEs.
  • Review and strengthen pre-service teacher education programs.

Article from EdWeed: “Two Districts, Two Approaches to Common Core Curriculum: To meet common core, one opts for publisher, other writes own materials” By Catherine Gewertz

• One bought available material, the other designed their own curriculum for CCSS
• No real conclusion presented – benefit on both ends

OPTIONAL READING

Wei, R. C., Pecheone, R. L., & Wilczak, K. L. (2015). Measuring what really matters. Phi Delta Kappan, 97, 8–13.

• Performance assessment vs large-scale assessments
  • “We continue to see political contexts as the biggest obstacle for including performance assessment in large-scale assessments today.” Wei, Pecheone & Wilczak, 2015, p.11)

http://www.corestandards.org/

• The standards are:
  • Research- and evidence-based
  • Clear, understandable, and consistent
  • Aligned with college and career expectations
  • Based on rigorous content and application of knowledge through higher-order thinking skills
  • Built upon the strengths and lessons of current state standards
  • Informed by other top performing countries in order to prepare all students for success in our global economy and society

Denise wasn’t there so the CAs Molly and Stephanie led the class very well.

We did a Jigsaw exercise where the class was divided into their preassigned roles/lenses we did the readings with. The roles were:

• Expert teacher
• Novice teacher
• Parent with a high performing student
• Parent with a low performing student
• School principle (my role)
• School board member

After feeding off of each other about the issues, stances, and solutions we went into the simulation or role playing group, where one of each role was present.

During the second half of the class we split into our Project Groups do have some time to get organized and define the next steps for the Curriculum Redesign Final Project.

We split the work like this:

(Lucas) – Rationale / Context
TODO: Review feedback and update

(Lucas) – Goals
TODO: Review feedback and update

(Lisa & Mohamad) Learning Activities
TODO: Do the “filtering process” → Updated Syllabus
TODO: Come up with the key learning activities

(Celine) Assessment
TODO: Figure out assessment at every level

(All) Process Log (Why)
TODO: Take photos and sum up notes

Some useful handouts:

Lesson Plan Template:

Assessment activities – Ways to Show What I Know

Pedagogical Moves Used in Class