Curriculum Mapping

Curriculum Mapping

By:  Melissa Hancock

           In the era of a whole new type of accountability for teachers, the last thing that many educators want to hear about is revising the curriculum.  However, if we, as educators, are going to have our status within a school district calculated based on the degree to which our students are showing growth in relation to curriculum standards, it is vital for us to have a curriculum that gives us the tools we need to help our students grow and change.  This is where the concept of curriculum mapping comes to the forefront.  In order to effectively teach the core curriculum standards that are being tested, we must have a well-crafted document to guide our actions.  Today’s guru of curriculum mapping is Heidi Hayes Jacobs, the director of the Center for Curriculum Mapping.  Jacobs (2004) suggests that if schools are successful in mapping the curriculum, there will be two positive results:  “measurable improvement in student performance in the targeted areas, and the institutionalization of mapping as a process for ongoing curriculum and assessment review.” (p. 2) 

The idea of getting staff to buy-in to the curriculum mapping process should not be overlooked because curriculum mapping should be a collaborative process.  Since curriculum mapping involves all teachers documenting their own curriculum and examining the curriculum of others for gaps, redundancies, and consistent alignment and articulation of standards, it is vital that schools be learning communities, not just for the students, but also for the staff (Udelhofen, 2005).  Therefore, as the curriculum mapping process gets underway, educational leaders need to be sure their staff members feel they are a valuable part of the process.  This can be done by providing proper professional development, exploring ideas together, discussing what needs to be changed, and updating the staff on the process (Jacobs, 2004).

         Once the initial pre-planning process of choosing a mapping template is complete, the true mapping process can get underway.  First, individual teachers should complete their individual maps using the agreed upon template.  This means that each and every teacher records their curriculum data independently, so that the document is based in reality.  The maps should include content, skills, and assessments on a month-by-month basis.  Materials that are used should be referenced in the map.   After the individual maps are complete, teachers meet to look at various maps across content areas and at varying grade levels.  They should look for clear connections between the content, skills, and assessments as well as gaps and redundancies.  The third step is sharing their reviews with other colleagues in a small group setting of about seven to eight teachers.  This is followed by small groups reporting their findings to the entire staff; and at this point individuals will be able to see the district’s true curriculum.  This means that teachers will be able to see what changes need to occur, without an administrator having to tell them.  The fifth step is to develop an action plan.  This may include deciding who will address what issues and the timetable to address them.  This is followed by implementing the action plan.  Teachers working on the action plan are most likely trying to:  align content, skills, and assessments to standards; develop essential questions; explore opportunities for curriculum integration; create benchmark assessments; and work to integrate literacy in other content areas (Udelhofen, 2005).

           Overall, the curriculum mapping process has many positive benefits for schools.  It encourages reflective practice and truly gets teachers thinking about the teaching and learning in their classrooms and other classrooms in their district.  Additionally, it allows gaps and redundancies to be identified and promotes better alignment to standards.  Finally, it allows an improved learning experience for students, one that includes better linkage of standards, learning activities, materials, and assessments.  Even though curriculum mapping may sound overwhelming, it is truly a needed step in helping teachers meet the demands of the new accountability system.

References:

Hayes Jacobs, H. (2004).  Getting results with curriculum mapping.  Alexandria, VA:  Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Udelhofen, S. (2005).  Keys to curriculum mapping:  Strategies and tools to make it work.  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Corwin Press

NJ Tenure Reform Bill

On August 6, 2012, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed the Teacher Effectiveness and Accountability for the Children of New Jersey (TEACHNJ) Act into affect after being passed by Senate and assembly three months prior. TEACHNJ, S-1455, was a bipartisan decision and created with input from all relevant stakeholders – legislation, principals and supervisors, school boards, the New Jersey Department of Education, and the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA). This marked the first change to NJ education tenure laws in over 100 years. It is the combination of proposals by Senator Teresa Ruiz (D-Newark), assemblyman Patrick J. Diegnan, other stakeholders, and the provisions suggested by the NJEA. The aim of TEACHNJ is to make sure that each teacher is effective. This marks the first time that tenure is measured by effectiveness rather than the time spent in a position or within a district. The goal is to have every student in New Jersey graduate high school ready for college or a career, regardless of where they grew up and which school they attended. (Office of the Governor, 2012)

            The new tenure law was put into effect for all new-hires starting in the 2012-2013 school year. Teachers hired prior to that school year will operate under the previous tenure laws. TEACHNJ extended the time period to achieve tenure from three years to four. In order to receive tenure, teachers are required to complete a mentorship during their first year of teaching and be rated “effective” or “highly effective” in two of the three summative yearly evaluations. Teachers who have already acquired tenure are not required to earn it again, unless they move to another school district. Educational services staff members do not need to complete the first-year mentorship and are not held subject to the evaluation rating categories of TEACHNJ. However, many districts are creating new evaluations for these positions. Secretaries and clerks still receive tenure after three years. Their tenure cases will no be settled by arbitrators, not in the courts as they were previously. If a tenured teacher moves to a new position within the district that requires a different type of certificate, tenure can be obtained after two years in that position. An example of which is a teacher who becomes a school counselor would receive tenure after two years in his/her new position. Principals are required to receive “effective” or “highly effective” ratings in two annual evaluations in first three years to receive tenure. In these cases, the person still has tenure in the previous position. (The New Tenure Law: How It Will Affect you, 2012)

In the 2012-2013 school year, 30 school districts were part of the pilot teacher evaluation system (Office of the Governor, 2012). The 2013-2014 school year was the beginning of the statewide implementation (Office of the Governor, 2012). The new evaluation system comprises of four ratings: highly effective, effective, partially effective, and ineffective. The law specifies that the evaluations should be compiled from several objective measures of student growth. These evaluations are to completed by in-district administrators and supervisors (The Evolution of Tenure Reform in New Jersey, 2012). Evaluations will now be linked to professional development. The idea is to tailor professional development to the needs of teachers to help them become more effective. TEACHNJ also provides support for teachers to improve their effectiveness. First-year parents are required to be a part of a mentorship program. The goal of the mentorship program is to work with administrators and colleagues to help them succeed with the proper skills and supports. If ineffective evaluations are given to tenured teachers, some circumstances allow for an additional year to receive effective evaluation if modest improvements were made. (The New Tenure Law: How It Will Affect you, 2012)

Tenure charges must be brought about if a rating of “ineffective” or “partially effective” is followed by a rating of “ineffective.” However, if the teacher receives an evaluation of “partially effective” after a rating of “ineffective” or “partially effective,” the teacher may be allowed to have a third year to earn a rating of “effective” or “highly effective.” The tenure law works to decrease the amount of time and money spent to remove a teacher that is evaluated repeatedly as ineffective. (The New Tenure Law: How It Will Affect you, 2012) Under the old tenure law, a removal of a tenured teacher could take several years and cost more than $100,000.  The new teacher dismissal proceedings were proposed by the NJEA and modeled after the successful Massachusetts law regarding teacher dismissal appeals. This includes the change from appeals occurring with arbitrators as opposed to the courts. Under this law, there is a 105 day limit from when the tenure charges are received by the commission and a cap of $7,500 which would be paid by the state. All teachers are still entitled to due process. (Office of the Governor, 2012)

Districts will have School Improvement Panels to help the implementation of TEACHNJ. Their role is to oversee the mentoring program, conduct certain evaluations, and identify professional development opportunities. The panel consists of a principal (or a person that he/she designates), the assistant or vice principal, and a teacher. (The New Tenure Law: How It Will Affect you, 2012).

Assemblyman Patrick J. Diegnan Jr. summarizes the law by saying it “is meaningful tenure reform that does what’s best for our children while balancing the protection of due process for our principals and teachers” (Office of the Governor, 2012). NJEA president Barbara Keshishian states that they new tenure reform law is “a win-win for our students, their teachers, and the public” (A ‘win-win’ for students, teachers, and the public, 2012). Just over a year after being signed, Senator Teresa Ruiz, the law’s prime sponsor, remarks that it is still an “unfinished job” (Mooney, 2013). She says that New Jersey should be proud of what the law has accomplished thus far and that it is one step in process in ensuring the best education for New Jersey’s students (Mooney, 2013). Christie acknowledges that it is a continuous process as well (Mooney, 2013).

References

A ‘win-win’ for students, teachers, and the public. (2013, August 06). NJEA. Retrieved from https://www.njea.org/news/2012-08-06/a-win-win-for-students-teachers-and-the-public

Mooney, J. (2013, August 12). Tenure law still a work in progress. Philly.com. Retrieved from http://www.philly.com/philly/education/20130812_Tenure_law_still_work_in_progress.html

Talking points on the new tenure law. (2012, August). Retrieved from http://www.njea.org/njea-media/pdf/TenureLawTalkingPoints2012.pdf?1380895938844 

The evolution of tenure reform in new jersey. (2012, June 20). NJEA. Retrieved from https://www.njea.org/news/2012-06-20/the-evolution-of-tenure-reform-in-new-jersey

The new tenure law: how it will affect you. (2012, September 28). Retrieved from http://www.njea.org/njea-media/pdf/TenureLawQ-A_2012.pdf?1380895938844 

Office of the Governor. (2012, August 06). Governor chris christie signs revolutionary bipartisan tenure reform legislation into law. Office of the Governor Newsroom. Retrieved from http://www.state.nj.us/governor/news/news/552012/approved/20120806c.html

The Common Core State Standards

Nicole Haldeman

Common Core State Standards

Much is at stake for American education. The United States education system is slipping in the ranks when compared to other developed nations. American students ranked 24th out of the 29/30 OECD countries for both Mathematics and Problem-Solving. In science we ranked 21st. America fell at or below average in all three categories (www.oecd.org/statistics/). America ranks 17th out of the twenty best countries for education and has made little advancement in changing those rankings over the last few years (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/best-education-in-the-wor_n_2199795.html). Obviously, America is not doing something that the other 16 countries are doing.

            One step in the right direction towards bringing our education system up to par with other countries was to unify the standards used to create curriculums. Prior to the introduction of the Common Core Standards in 2009, states held the responsibility of creating and implementing their own set of academic standards. However, with the adoption of the core curriculum standards, each state will follow a clear set of internationally based educational standards in the subjects of mathematics and English language arts which will be utilized in kindergarten through the 12th grade. The core standards hope to put students in a position to excel in a technological and global workplace or in an advanced educational setting, such as a 2 or 4-year college or vocational school. The initiative, being designed and led by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) with input from teachers, administration, experts, and parents, has already been voluntarily adopted and in some cases implemented in 45 of the states.

            Through thorough research a set of evidence based standards were developed in mathematics and English language arts. Importantly, these standards are internationally benchmarked and will hopefully allow our students to compete globally. The common core standards outlines what skills need to be taught to students and when. It tells the teacher what the student should be able to accomplish per grade level. For example, in the 3rd grade a student should be able to write opinion pieces on topics or texts, supporting a point of view with reasons. Additionally, the student must be able to use linking words and phrases (e.g., because, therefore) to connect opinions and reasons (CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.3.1 and CCSS.ELA-Literacy.W.3.1c). The core standards do not however tell teachers or schools how to teach the information outlined in the standards, rather, they can devise their own curriculums and lesson plans and implement it in ways that fit their own classroom and students.

Unfortunately, it is hard to tell the impact that the common core standards will have on the educational system for many years. Already, there have been some discussions on the positive and negative aspects of the core standards before they have even reached their fruition. On a positive note, the core standards initiative aims to lessen and close the gaps in achievement between higher and lower economic areas. All schools, regardless of where they are located or their student population’s economic status, will be held to the same high academic standards. This should appease colleges as well because a large complaint by many colleges and universities is that a large portion, around 73% of students in reading and 63% in mathematics, need remedial courses because they are not ready for the rigorous coursework of college (The Condition of Education, 2004). Additionally, states will benefit positively from the initiative because they will no longer need to develop unique tests for their state, rather, one test can be formulated with the cost split between participating states, saving money for every state involved. A benefit for teachers is that they are able to share information with the other participating states to widen their scope of the best practices in education, which allows for greater collaboration between teachers across the country. Student’s benefit because their progress is measured more easily with the standards in place due to progress and pre-test monitoring tools that are made available to educators. Now, if a student is lagging behind, it is easier to pinpoint earlier on because they will be frequently monitored individually throughout their school year (Meador, Pros and Cons of the Common Core Standards).

Despite the positives, there are some negative aspects that have been brought to light concerning the common core standards. In my opinion, the largest negative associated with the standards is the lack of an equivalent test for special needs students. Instead, they are expected to complete the same test as their general education peers. The common core state standards website states that there will be shared best practices and experiences to help students with disabilities and English language learners as well as information on the implementation of the standards for those children. I feel that the answer was vague and not well defined, there was no further information regarding this group of children. Another negative regarding the standards is the difficult adjustment for both teachers and students. However, I feel in time students and teachers will adjust, so although negative at first, I do not believe it will remain a negative of the initiative in the future. Additionally, some argue that the new program will be too rigorous and fast paced for school children, especially those in elementary school. I feel that after looking at statistics of where we fall globally that our students may need a more rigorous education. One negative I cannot deny is that schools will have to purchase newer textbooks and supplies to align with the standards which can prove costly for school districts (Meador, Pros and Cons of the Common Core Standards).

I feel, after reviewing the literature regarding the common core state standards, that this anticipated change in educational standards will help to lead America in the right direction. Looking towards the future, one can optimistically predict that with a more even playing field for students from diverse economic backgrounds and with more attention paid to elementary education that a larger number of students will graduate. With more students graduating, prepared to work and attend college, the economy should raise and our colleges will spend less money and tax dollars on remedial courses. A larger number of students will graduate from colleges because they will not be taking these non-credit remedial courses. The hope for American education is that, with the implementation of these standards, we will again rise in the world education ranks and be considered an OECD country with a top-notch education.  

References

Best Education In The World: Finland, South Korea Top Country Rankings, U.S. Rated Average. (2012, November 27). Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. Retrieved September 27, 2013, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/best-education-in-the-wor_n_2199795.html

Common Core State Standards Initiative | Home. (n.d.). Common Core State Standards Initiative | Home. Retrieved September 27, 2013, from http://www.corestandards.org/

Meador, D. (n.d.). Pros and Cons of the Common Core Standards - Pros and Cons of the Core Standards. Teaching - About Teaching and Educational Best Practices - Educational Professional - School Principal - School Administrator . Retrieved September 27, 2013, from http://teaching.about.com/od/assess/f/What-Are-Some-Pros-And-Cons-Of-The-Common-Core-Standards.htm

Statistics - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (n.d.). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved September 27, 2013, from http://www.oecd.org/statistics/

The Condition of Education. (2004, June 1). National Center for Education. Retrieved

September 27, 2013, from nces.ed.gov/

Common Core State Standards

                                                Common Core Standards
                                                               By: Angela Gwathney

As the 2013-2014 school year has recently commenced there has been great debate in the recent curriculum changes across the country as a result of participating states adjusting their curriculum to meet the Common Core Standards. The National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) led the development and continue the initiative of the Common Core State Standards. So far forty-five states have adopted the Common Core Standards. Such standards emplace uniform measures for grade levels k-12 in English language arts and mathematics. These standards that have recently come into effect do not tell teachers how to teach and or what specific lessons they should be teaching. Rather these standards guide schools to develop their curriculums in a unified manner. Common Core Standards also give teachers, students, and parents an idea of the state’s educational expectation at each grade level.

One of the incentives behind the Common Core Standards is due to American falling behind academically on an international scale. For example, in 2008 on the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), American students placed 25^th in math and 24^th in problem solving out of thirty industrialized counties (www.nlmusd.k12.ca.us). The intent behind these standards being emplaced is so that graduates from high school poses the tools to successfully enter any two-four year college as well as the workforce. The Common Core Standards ensure that not only our students be prepared for their future but also that our communities be put in the best position to compete successfully in the global economy.

You may be wondering how such drastic changes will be assessed. Fear not, in the coming 2014-2015 school year assessments will be administered within educational systems of participating states. Next year all districts will have to partake in the one of the common assessments. The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium are the two state-led consortia developed to assess the Common Core Standards. Although such drastic changes lay a game plan for school districts, teachers, and administrative personnel, these modifications have generated large concerns.

Due to the curriculums being made more rigorous, much feedback to these reforms has been made. Those who are in favor for the reforms feel that this only adds to their curriculums and is beneficial in giving their teachers specific direction with their lessons (www.sheboyganpress.com). Schools who already hold their students to relatively high standards seem to be unaffected by the recent curriculum changes. Some parents of children experiencing the teaching reforms feel that it is a positive attribute to the current curriculums emplace and want their children to be able to compete in a global market.

Questions also have been raised in regards to special needs students. In reading about the Common Core Standards and how it will affect those with special needs and ESL students, it remains unclear. The Core Standards cite states that, “the standards include information on application of the standards to these groups of students (National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State, 2010).” One grandparent went as far to say they felt there grandchild was potentially being tortured and traumatized to be taught to meet a test that may fail (www.courant.com).

In reading the Huffington Post, critics of the new reforms have reciprocated some harsh responses. One comment made stated that, “allowing the federal government at the throats of our young people is to disallow children the opportunity to know the unique American experience of liberty in a freewill republic (huffingtonpost.com).” Some people that have posted on the cite have gone as far to equate Obama administration to Hitler and dictatorship! Are these comments exceedingly harsh or spoken truths?

Personally I feel as though the Common Core Standards is a step in some sort of direction but as many people are, I am skeptical. The reality of it is that we need to take action in creating change. Remaining stagnant is doing nothing in making intellectual progression as a county. In these reforms coming about, I fear that the purpose of teaching and ensuring that student’s best interest be taken into account will be overshadowed by districts working to meet Common Standards. These reforms accompanied with recent tenure changes (in New Jersey particularly) have created strenuous school year for teachers. Will students continue to acquire knowledge or learn specific material that enables them to pass a standardized test? In solving one problem have we created another? I’m not sure. I think that we won’t no if any of the steps taken actually prove to be beneficial to our educational system. I hope that in that time, these Common Core Standards prove to be everything they say they are. If they fail, the younger generation may suffer. We as a nation may actually be making counter productive strides as opposed to constructing a globally competitive generation.

N.A., Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District, The Common Core State Standards Initiative [The Rationale]. Retrieved from http://www.nlmusd.k12.ca.us/cms/lib3/CA01001758/Centricity/Domain/2892/112712_Rationale%20for%20the%20Common%20Core%20State%20Standards.pdf

Hertel, N., (2013, September 10).  Common Core standards becoming more common [News Article]. Retrieved from http://www.sheboyganpress.com.

National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State, (2010). Frequently Asked Questions [Informative Article]. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/resources/frequently-asked-questions

Megan, K., (2013, September 21). Common Core Standards To Change State’s Educational Landscape [News Article]. Retrieved from http://www.courant.com/news/education/hc-common-core-0922-20130921,0,7892931.story?page=1.

Klein,R., (2013, September 11). 13 Extreme Statements Made About The Common Core Standards [News Article]. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/11/common-core-extreme-statements_n_3908402.html

Data Analysis

In today’s current state of education, directives are implementing new expectations of learning and a commitment to closing the achievement gaps. The theory now is that schools should allow and provide for every student to achieve a high level of learning and achievement, in order to make students become independent learners. Accountability and assessment are at the heart of today’s educational reform efforts. As is indicated in numerous scholarly articles, strong accountability mandates, with heavy stakes attached, are sweeping the country at every level (Herman & Gribbons, 2001). As Ornstein & Hunkins (2013) state, learning is ongoing, never ceasing to enrich understanding. With this idea in mind, and the pressure put on schools to constantly improve, effective measures are needed to ensure schools are adhering to such standards. Recently, “high-stake” statewide tests have been at the forefront as an evaluation method of student performance. These tests, such as the NJASK, are aligned with state common core standards and measure the degree to which standards are being implemented at each level. However, as Bernhardt (2004), indicates Analyzing state assessment results is only the beginning of effective data-driven decision-making. The issue is that statewide assessments are one-dimensional; they only measure the scores of a group of students over a period of time. There are many factors that are not considered in these scores.  

            Bernhardt (2004), states NCLB (2001), has made the use of data to improve student achievement imperative. The use of data analysis provides an objective prospective as to what actually is happening to children in their school experience. It looks at the whole picture of a student. (Crew, 2013). I recently spoke with a special education monitor for the NJ Department of Education, who will remain anonymous. To summarize what she stated, the use of data analysis in schools is a multidimensional tool. It helps to enhance the curriculum, measure teacher effectiveness, and assess and improve overall school & district performance. The impression that was developed during this Q&A was that the use of data analysis in the school system is a never-ending cycle. To clarify this more, data analysis is a Multiple Measure System, meaning demographics, perceptions, student learning, and school processes are categories used to assess the productivity of the school. The question that needs to be answered is, how can we as educators serve our main cliental, the students? By analyzing a combination of areas such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, dropout rate, observations, values/beliefs, standardized tests, teacher assessments, etc., data will then help indicate where the school needs to make adjustment to fit the needs of their population.

            Where the criticism or cons of data analysis lies is that educators have to know how to properly interpret the data. Often, teachers are analyzing and comprehending data. This means that schools need to put the resources in to educate their teachers on proper processes. Also, even though the teacher’s may understand what data is telling them, the process to reevaluate their lessons and change their lessons in a very short period of time is time consuming. Many teachers have expressed that it takes time to self-critique and make pedagogical adjustments (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013). On the other end of the spectrum, districts need to be careful to not put all their eggs in one basket. In other words, administration needs to make it understood amongst their educators not to get over-eager about the use of data. Finally, when the data is looking at the teacher’s performance, it can lead to a sense of threat for that teacher. It can lead one to feel like they are under a microscope.

Although the ceiling seems high for the use of data analysis, it’s important to understand that; there is no substitute for good leadership in the schools. Data analysis is simply the face of what many consider a cultural change in education. It is a way to learn to improve from our mistakes and create the most positive learning environment. Data analysis is merely a set of tools for educators. By giving this data information to educators, and helping them to understand how to use it [the data] to approve student achievement, you will get good results (Klein, 2013).

References:

Bernhardt, V. (2004). Continuous Improvement: It takes more than test scores. ACSA Leadership , 16-19

Herman, J. & Gribbons, B. (2001). Lessons learned in using data to support school inquiry and continuous improvement: Final report to the Stuart Foundation. CSE Technical Reprt 535 .

Ornsteing, A.C., & Hunkins. (2013). Curriculum: Foundations, Principals, and Issues Sixth Edition. Pearson Education Inc.

New Jersey Department of Education. www.state.nj.us/education/data