Cycle Two: How Should a Curriculum Be Created? How Should Its Success Be Evaluated?

“Cycle Two: How Should a Curriculum Be Created? How Should Its Success Be Evaluated?”

These questions pack a lot of punch and there are so many schools (pun intended) of thought regarding these questions; thus they are very difficult to grapple with, let alone answer. I’ll start off by saying that an effective curriculum should be one in which students work at a pace appropriate for their learning while being assessed in a performance-based way. That being said, a successful curriculum would also hold all students to a high standard of academic rigor; however, the means by which students achieve said rigor might be different. I came to these initial (and I say initial because they are such difficult questions to discuss) answers through synthesizing our readings for the week.

Salman Kahn’s TEDTalk was incredibly inspirational and really helped lead me to my view that students must have the freedom to work at their own pace in order for a curriculum to be successful. He made two analogies that made complete and utter sense. One, he said that the way in which current schools operate in the sense that after the test, the class moves on, is analogous to giving a unicycle to a child who is already struggling to make turns on a regular bicycle. Two, he also mentioned that sometimes “good” students’ understanding of concepts become like “swiss cheese” when skills and concepts are not completely mastered prior to moving on. As an English teacher, this use of analogy really helped me to understand his essential argument for the videos, a flipped classroom, student self-pacing, and the importance of mastery in education. This video pertains mostly to grading practices but has some telling images and words directly from students about “needing more time” or just “needing another chance” that really remind me of the Khan academy principles.

The next criteria I pointed out as imperative for a successful curriculum involves the use of performance based tasks, and I’ll preface this statement by saying that it might sound snobby, or perhaps elitist; but here it goes--I’ve never thought of music or arts teachers as cutting edge in the realm of curriculum or assessment. In fact when my friend and colleague, a former art teacher at my school, took a position as an instructional coach, I was nearly dumbfounded. That being said, Leslie Siskin’s (2009) chapter truly opened my eyes to the fact that many arts courses are performance based, and always have been. In that sense, I think about the efforts my school has made to move toward a more skill-based curriculum, one in which students need to demonstrate mastery of a concept through performance of a task before moving on.  Throughout the past few years, we have strived to move toward a proficiency based model versus a strictly credit bearing system.

We partner with Move on When Ready (MOWR) and the Center for the Future of Arizona (CFA) to provide our students with the Cambridge Curriculum I’ve discussed in previous posts. Through using these systems it is our hope that students will graduate when they are ready (potentially at the end of their tenth grade year) after passing a series of examinations. Together, teachers and students determine “readiness” in the four core subject areas plus Fine Art and Spanish. Students at my campus may take these exams as many times as they need to in order to demonstrate proficiency. Additionally, their courses are not dictated based on their “grade status” (ie sophomore, junior, etc). Students are enrolled in courses based on their need. For instance, freshman last year took biology; however, a certain number of students were not yet ready for the Cambridge Biology exam. These students will be enrolled in biology again this term in order to help better prepare them for the end of course exam. Similarly to Kahn Academy’s student-driven-pace, I hope that this model my school began implementing is similar to what Eisner (2009) meant when described good schools “increasing variance in student performance.”

Additionally, it’s worth noting that the Cambridge exams I mentioned earlier are phenomenal. I might ruffle a few feathers by saying this, but if teaching to the test is wrong, then I don’t want to be right (when it comes to the Cambridge exams). For example, the First Language English exam, taken at the end of the course, focuses on reading comprehension through asking students to perform written tasks. After reading both a fiction and non-fiction passage, students construct a directed writing response (often a letter, journal, newspaper article, etc) that responds to a prompt in order to demonstrate comprehension of the passage (which is usually very British). Next, students are asked to analyze the writer’s use of language by choosing a total of eight quotations from the passage to discuss writer’s effects. Lastly, students construct an objective summary of the non-fiction piece. Did I mention that students do this in two hours time? While this test is technically a “standardized” test taken by students all over the world, a great deal of data can be gleaned from it. Not to mention, the number of skills that students demonstrate through performing the tasks on the exam are innumerable. Thinking about the exams, plus the fact that students can move through the curriculum at their pace helps solidify my school’s choice to adopt the program.

In tandem with MOWR and the CFA initiative, as a staff we have made strides to move toward a proficiency-based model in our classrooms. Students are offered unlimited re-dos and re-takes on tests and other assignments; the only caveat being that they attend teacher office hours for re-teach. These school policies are rooted in the same notions that Salman Kahn discussed when he talked about students working at different paces, or perhaps taking longer to master one concept, then mastering it, and flying through everything else at an increased rate of performance. Furthermore, as a campus we have also developed some “common elements” as Tyler (1949) would describe them. These elements include a specific way to teach students summary writing in all courses that aligns with Cambridge. To me, these ideas also resonate with Siskin (2009) and the notion that currently many students finish high school without high standards and that high standards must be established for all students within a school, not just some. I wholeheartedly agree with this and would argue that my school is well on its way toward achieving this through our partnership with MOWR and Cambridge. We’ve ensured that students are held to the same standard; however, timing can be different based on different student’s needs.

In my discussion of curriculum, Cambridge, and Kahn Academy, I still seem to have left out one important aspect about effective curriculum. Here it is, ultimately, curriculum is rooted in the experience of a particular student (Tyler, 1949). These experiences are not the same for any two students in a course. Therefore, schools and teachers must take this into consideration when enacting curriculum. Learning experiences must be diverse enough to “prove satisfying to the students involved” (p. 66).  Here is a pdf of a program called “The Multiple Learning Experiences Model” it is definitely worth taking a look at for more information on some of the ideas brought up by Tyler (1949). It seems to me, as a whole, the "traditional" school in the U.S. today struggles in many ways to meet the needs of students through these varied experiences while also maintaining high standards for all students.

While there are limitations and successes of any developed curriculum, I would argue that success be measured using performance tasks and that students have the opportunity to work at an appropriate pace based on their need. Obviously these criteria not all inclusive; however, they are of utmost importance in my view. This Rick Wormeli article, while focused primarily on Middle School, aligns very well with my philosophically. 

Cycle One: What is Curriculum? What is its Purpose? What is the relationship between student and curriculum?”

What is Curriculum? What is its Purpose? What is the relationship between student and curriculum?” At my school, we use a curriculum provided by Cambridge International Examinations. While this is our “curriculum” I like to think of it as more of a framework; the social behaviorist in Schubert’s (1996) text would call this the what. Teachers at my campus still have a great deal of freedom regarding how to enact this curricular framework. For example, I develop my own “curriculum map,” but really all I am doing is determining the scope and sequence of learning objectives within thematic units. In other words, the “aims” as Noddings would say are provided for us, but teachers determine more specific learning objectives. Yet still, the individual student(s) play a large role in what is actually learned or taken away from the lesson.

Throughout the readings and this week’s discussion surrounding curriculum, I kept thinking of Donovan’s story and how Donovan would interact at a school like mine. The truth is, he wouldn’t. Donovan would not be receiving an education of any sort at my school. I feel a great deal of emotion while reading about Donovan. While everyone involved in his education seems to have his best interest at heart, so much is still lacking in terms of growth and progress for this young man. Donovan’s mother wants practical things for him such as physical therapy and help in overcoming his self-abuse; while the principal wants variety in Donovan’s (and every other disabled child’s) day through switching classes. Teachers want Donovan to achieve the goals written into his IEP while also providing him with some minutia of the content for their academic course. So who knows what’s best for Donovan? While this question is an immensely difficult one to answer, it seems as though Mr. Adams, Donovan’s former one-on-one aide, is the only person who has truly gotten to know Donovan on a level that would allow for him to notice progress.

While Donovan’s mother indeed loves her son very much, she notices that his IEP goals may be unachievable and that time might better be spent elsewhere. However, Mr. Adams has come to learn Donovan’s language; he knows certain physical messages that allow him to communicate with Donovan on a level no one else seems to have grasped. Donovan’s story reminds me very much of a student I know from my hometown; let’s call him Rick. My mother, a long time instructional aide, has known Rick since he was a first grade student in the classroom she worked in. Fast-forward to now; Rick is a senior at the local high school and still lives down the street from my parents. For the last few years, my mother has helped Rick’s family out by picking him up from the bus stop, spending time with him in the afternoons, and driving his sisters to ballet before his parents get home from work. During this after school time, my mother has spent time working on Rick’s homework with him. I have had numerous conversations with my mother about Rick in which she complains that his current homework is at a lower level than what he was doing in FIRST GRADE when she worked with him closely in the classroom. She feels sad that his current schooling does not seem to push him academically the way he was pushed in elementary school. I’m not quite sure why this is, but I definitely see a connection between my mother and Mr. Adams—these two educators took the time to really get to know the diverse students they worked with and ended up seeing results.

While Donovan and Rick have unique needs, many other students have needs and interests spanning various other disciplines, interests, and skills. Corbett (2010) struck me a great deal when she said; “All this goes back to the debate over what constitutes “21st-century skills.” How do schools manage to teach new media without letting go of old media?” This resonates with me on many levels because as an English teacher in a traditional classroom, even I can see the use for technology to enhance student learning. Yet, my school has a strict no device policy in the classroom (one that I often break and then ask for forgiveness later). At the same time, our campus also has an impeccably stocked “Smart Lab” room with many of the same types of technology discussed in the Quest to Learn Article. Furthermore, when students attend this “specials” class on a quarterly basis, they learn about game theory, game design, robotics, slight simulation, etc. Many of these skills have direct real-world applications to the types of 21^st Century careers our students will eventually pursue.

This article gives perspective to, not only, the idea of 21^st Century skills, but also the reality that many of our young people are falling behind in the area of basic skills (especially in math) and that we should reevaluate our current practices.  Noddings mentions that “First, the standards/testing movement is driven primarily by an aim that speaks to the welfare of the nation.” (p. 429). However, if that were truly the case, would our students continually be falling behind (in comparison to other nations) as they currently are? Since this is our reality, perhaps a non-traditional schooling method like the one described at Quest is a viable option? To me, this connects very closely with something Dewey (1902) mentioned regarding genuine problems and conflicting elements, “Solution comes only by getting away from the meaning of terms that is already fixed upon and coming to see the conditions from another point of view, and hence in a fresh light.” (p. 104). It seems as though the genuine problems surrounding curriculum need to be looked at in a different way if we would like to facilitate different results.

Yet, Schubert’s (1996) article has a questioner ask the Experientialist the following question, “If students pursue whatever they want to pursue, how do all of the necessary skills and bodies of knowledge get covered?” The Experientialist goes on to answer by saying that the learning process can be more important than the content learned; he also questions whose decision is should be to determine what is necessary to cover. As an educator, I too, feel conflicted regarding whose decision that is. Schubert’s (1996) conclusion helped me to answer this question by saying that all parties involved play a role in these decisions and that, “Good answers lie in continuously asking what knowledge and experiences are most worthwhile now, and now, and now…” (p. 8). So who gets to determine what is worthwhile?

To me, this idea links very closely with both the Quest to Learn article and the article about Donovan. Considering the fact that the students in both articles have very different needs means that the “worthwhile” knowledge for each is very different. It is only when all stakeholders involved in the child’s education (parents, teachers, students, administration, etc.) all come together that this “worthwhile” knowledge can truly be determined. However, this can be incredible difficult to determine at times when all parties are not on the same page. For instance, Donovan’s mother thinks it is more worthwhile for her son to have physical therapy to help alleviate his self-harming habits; yet, the principal wants Donovan to circulate through a series of core classes learning about fruit and seeds. These two stakeholders have very different perceptions of what should be Donovan’s “worthwhile” knowledge.  Even more so, the current reality of education revolves around copious standardized tests created by outside parties who can sometimes be far-removed from current classrooms. Thus, more often than not, an outside party determines what “worthwhile” knowledge students should receive. This chapter from google books outlines potential answers to five discussion questions surrounding teachers, their role in curriculum development, and what influences curriculum development. The book centers around New Zealand specifically; however, much of what is discussed could be applied to American schools nonetheless (perhaps with the exception of public policy, of course).

I always thought I had a lot of freedom in developing the curriculum in my classroom, In fact, in the past, as an educator, I have felt a great deal of pressure when making “curricular” choices for my middle schoolers in terms of which texts to choose, which writing assignments to give, and how to assess student learning. The truth is, though, none of these items really matter if I am enacting the Cambridge curriculum my school has chosen. Almost any text could be read to master the learning objectives provided by Cambridge (and also the Common Core for that matter). So are the decisions I make really that impactful, or have the impactful decisions already been made for me? I would argue that the aims have been set for me and I have the freedom to achieve those aims by the means I see necessary for the students in my classroom. At the core, educators (most that I know, anyway) have the freedom to make choices directly related to student learning and achievement. They might not choose the standards, aims, or state assessments, but they do have the freedom to create lessons surrounding a high-interest, Young Adult Lit. book over canonical texts or a real-world math application activity with probability and the NCAA tournament.

Introduction

My name is Lauren Meunier, I am originally from Midland, Michigan; though I relocated to Arizona after finishing my undergrad at Michigan State University. I am getting ready to start my 5th year teaching English Language Arts at a small charter school in Surprise, AZ (yes, that is the real name of the town and has it really already been 5 years?!). I primarily teach 8th grade Language Arts, but also have taught sections of Senior English in the past. I will be transitioning into a new supportive role on campus. I will still be working as the 8th grade team lead and ELA teacher; however, I will no longer be teaching seniors, freeing up two periods in my school day. During those two periods, I will work with middle school teachers on our implementation of the Cambridge curriculum. It will be a happy medium between coaching and mentoring while still offering me the opportunity to be teaching in my own classroom. I will spend my time observing, planning, and working with our middle school staff to help ensure that we implement Cambridge with fidelity in our middle school so that our students are ultimately prepared for our high school Cambridge courses. This new role should help prepare me for my ultimate goal, to become an instructional coach at my school (and since our population has doubled in the last four years, this may be feasible in the not so distant future).

In addition to my teaching responsibilities, I am the 8th grade team leader, Academic Achievement task force leader, Hiring Team leader, and the adviser to Builders Club (a service learning/volunteering organization for Middle School students).  These responsibilities plus my MSU courses leave me with little “free time,” but I do have a few hobbies I enjoy. Since moving to Arizona, I have a new love for the outdoors and hiking in the mountains. Some of my favorite hikes have been in Sedona, AZ—it is gorgeous there! I also love going to boxing and kickboxing classes at a local gym; it makes me feel tough, almost like I could be an MMA fighter, almost. Lastly, I love reading by the pool (or in the pool when it is 115 degrees outside) and finally live in a house that has one! This summer, I have mostly been reading YA lit (here is a link to a new novel I just chose for my 8th grade class). and books about writing in the Common Core era. 

Now for my thoughts about curriculum, this is tough because, to me, so many things play a role in creating curriculum. Prior to reading Wilson's (2015) website regarding curriculum, I always thought curriculum to be the intentional map, units, lessons, and assessments I put together for my students in order to help them achieve the goals, standards, and skills put forth by Cambridge and the Common Core. However, now I realize that curriculum is much more than the intentional course I create. Curriculum also has a very important social and perceived component; meaning that students essentially help to create curriculum through their prior knowledge, experiences, and interactions with the material presented and each other. In essence, these individual factors make it so that no one student truly receives curriculum in the same way.