A Reader Writes... (Curriculum Myth - Part 2)

In response to the 12/10/2010 post, “Curriculum Myth,” a LYS Principal writes:

Sean did a good job of fielding this one. Let's look at your opening statement:

Shouldn't curriculum, instruction and assessment all be standards-oriented, research-based and data driven?

The answer to this question is "YES"

From a curriculum theory standpoint, you have the taught curriculum, the prescribed curriculum, and the learned curriculum.

Curriculum begins with standards. In Texas, the State Board of Education (SBOE) determines these standards. Standards should be research based with input from society, experts, and anticipation on the needs of students in a changing future, etc. TEA uses the SBOE standards (TEKS) and builds assessment of those standards (TAKS, STAAR). Pearson uses a whole lot of experts (and money) to develop assessments. These assessments are research based and to paraphrase Willard Daggett, “For a standardized test, TAKS is pretty good."

You have no control of the tested standards. And there is NO need for YOU to research them. The research has been professionally conducted and the assessment is what it is. Are those standards research based? Maybe, maybe not. You really have to follow the buffoonery that is SBOE deliberations to answer this question and if you do follow the buffoonery, you know the answer.

Once we know the tested standards, we work on the prescribed curriculum. We select a curriculum that we trust is aligned to tested standards. Again, no need to do the research, it has been done for you when the standards were determined, just align your prescribed curriculum to the tested standards.

Next you have the taught curriculum, what happens in the classroom, and the learned curriculum, which also happens in the classroom. This is where PowerWalks, the Fundamental Five and common assessments come in. We use frequent common assessments (which are probably not research based) to verify that the taught and learned curriculum is aligned with the prescribed curriculum.

From top to bottom it looks like this:

1. Standards (partially research based, partially politically and ideologically motivated) developed/approved by the SBOE.

2. Tested standards based upon SBOE standards (TEKS). Tested standards are developed by TEA (TAKS, STAAR). The tested standards are definitely research based, but not by you. You can conduct your own research, but the State is not interested in the results of your research.

3. Your district chooses a curriculum (C-Scope, C-CAP, et al.) that is aligned to the tested standards. Again, no research required, just verify the prescribed curriculum addresses the needs of the tested standards, which is a scope and sequence issue, not a research issue. At this step, we are looking for alignment, not validity and reliability.

4. Verify that the taught and learned curriculums are tightly aligned to the prescribed curriculum.

So yes, curriculum is in theory, research based. But in our case no research is required. BTW, you get an A+ and get to go to the head of the class if you can analyze the process described in steps 1-4, find the weaknesses, and create practical solutions to address those weaknesses. The process will require no research.

I have a lot of principals and central office types ask me how to respond to teachers who are attacking C-Scope, claiming C-Scope is not research based. I hope here I have made it clear C-Scope has no need to be research based, it just needs to align to the tested standards, and it is.

SC Response

If I did a good job with my response, you did a great job with yours.

All I will add is this. I want teachers to be experts. But to create a staff of experts I have to narrow the focus, not expand it. So to create a staff of experts in the delivery of instruction (the art of teaching), I have to take something off their plate. Outsource the “what to teach” (constant research) and the “when to teach it” (constant evaluation) issues to other experts. Translation: Leadership must bring an aligned scope and sequence to the instructional staff so they can focus their time and brainpower on becoming expert teachers.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...

Follow Sean Cain at www.Twitter.com/LYSNation

Attend the LYS Presentations at the TASB Winter Legal Conference (Today)

Visit the LYS Booth at the NASSP Conference (2/24 - 2/26)

Attend the LYS Presentation at the Texas Middle School Association Conference (2/26/2011)

A Reader Writes... (Urban School Myth - Part 2)

In response to the posts relating to, “Urban School Myth,” an old school LYS Principal writes:

“It is always good when Brezina likes a post.

Of course, I know there are scores of problems that make the job of education exceedingly difficult. I also believe that many of those problems are self inflicted. In rural schools, we talk about not having the resources needed to compete with those big city schools. In the big schools, both urban and suburban, we look around and ask ourselves, "What resources are they talking about?"

The urban school myth is but one of a collection of excuses I have noted that educators use to explain away the lack of student success. While working in a large urban district, I made the mistake of discussing my thoughts concerning this particular myth with an assistant superintendent who hid behind the urban school mantra. After presenting the case and laying out the facts, you would not believe her response. She looked at me and said, "Well, you do understand we are not a true urban school. We are an inner city school."

What? That’s the best you can come up with? If you can't logic your wait out of a corner, just restate the excuse using synonyms? At that point, I realized that my skill set in this particular non-LYS district was a waste of their money and my time."

SC Response
Let me start with your “self-inflicted” observations. During my career as “school-district-state plumber,” the sad truth was in most cases the problem is easy to pinpoint, all you had to do was hold up a mirror. That’s both bad news and good news. The bad news being that we are at fault, but the good news is that we can do something about it. If we work, at full speed, on the things that we can control, the uncontrollable (myth) problems solve themselves.

Up until the mid-2000’s, the resource issue was a valid excuse. The rural schools had no infrastructure support. Not because they didn’t want it, but because it didn’t exist. Now you can buy infrastructure (scope and sequence, data processing, etc), and it becomes more affordable every year. If you are in Texas, you need to thank two people for making this possible, Dr. Shirley Neely (Commissioner of Education) and Dr. Nadine Kujawa (Aldine ISD Superintendent). Nadine and Aldine ISD stepped up and gave a cohort of struggling rural school, their scope and sequence, for essentially free. Or as the Aldine leadership team told me, “Let them know, as far as we’re concerned, they are Aldine now.”

Shirley used Aldine and the subsequent success of rural school cohort as the lever to force the ESC’s to step up and better fulfill their purpose. Jump to 2010 and now you have C-Scope and C-Cap, two excellent and evolving curriculum sources that weren’t worth the paper that were then printed on, just six years ago.

Now that tools are readily available, at every campus in every setting, the critical variables are the adults and the quality of leadership (or lack thereof). One of the Maxwell’s Fundamental Laws of Leadership states that a subordinate leader will not work for a leader of inferior skills (in the long run). When you can’t attract good leadership candidates from the outside, nor retain good internal candidates, you have to seek out and address the root cause. This brings us back to the mirror.

Think. Work. Achieve.

Your turn...