Dispelling the Curriculum Myth
Educators are caught in a hamster wheel. For years educational leaders have tried new initiatives and resources each year to improve learning. In addition, teachers have spent hours receiving professional development related to those initiatives and resources and they have spent even more hours on lessons and activities to deliver to students. Yet, test scores remain the same or decrease. Leaders are frustrated and teachers are burnt out from doing the same unproductive cycle every year. Why do educators routinely follow the same curriculum development practices year after year when they do not work? The truth is, educators are caught in a curriculum myth.
What is that myth? It begins with our definition of curriculum as an educational system. Robert Marzano has discussed the importance of a guaranteed and viable curriculum for years. He defines a guarantee as the opportunity for each student to be exposed to material that will provide them college success. He describes the viability as the realistic plan or way in which a teacher can teach all of that material. What does that mean for Missouri teachers? The guarantee all students in Missouri adopted was state standards in each grade level. It is up to district’s to create a viable plan (pacing guide, scope and sequence) to ensure this happens.
In everyday educator practice, most often curriculum is defined as resources used to teach the state standards, not the state standards. This confusion is of no surprise as teachers are typically underprepared by colleges and universities and they rely heavily on curricular resources to help them know how and what to teach. But, the instruction and lessons in resources frequently do not align with the question type and proficiency expected on state assessments. Therefore, if teachers rely on resources to teach students and those resources don’t always cover all of the state standards or they do cover them by name but not in proficiency, there is an alignment gap. In turn, when students are given a state test that strictly assesses the mastery of state standards, we see a large learning gap and glaring underperformance. This is because many teachers have not been teaching to the target of state standards but to the target set in their resources.
To close this gap, we need to dispel the common curriculum myth of a focus on resources to a focus on state standards. Without this shift, a large number of students in Missouri will continue to not be exposed to a guaranteed and viable curriculum. Districts should begin this work by creating pacing guides that clearly lay out the priority and supporting standards in each grade and core content in a viable way throughout the year.
When creating guaranteed and viable pacing guides to the standards, teachers should consider pacing the standards to when they are taught within the current resource. This strategy will not only help teachers see the connection between their pacing guide (standards) and their resource, but it will also audit if their resource even covers all of the Missouri standards. What many districts have found is that resources do not always tightly align with every state priority standard. In fact, when audited closely, some resources do not cover every priority or supporting standard that a student would need to master in Missouri. This is crucial information for districts to know and address.
Once teachers have audited their resources and shifted to a clear understanding of a guaranteed and viable current curriculum, their next step is to make sure their understanding of the standards aligns with the state’s level of proficiency. In many districts, current assessments and instructional resources do not align with the proficiency and rigor of questions in state-level assessments. The calibration of proficiency of the state standards must be done so that teachers are creating clear assessment and instruction targets for their students.
This type of work can be done by accessing powerful state documents such as the item specifications, MO LEAP items, and past released assessment items. Teachers that find ways to leverage these documents to clarify their understanding of the standards, can create assessments that mirror the MAP/EOC assessments. This supports the teacher in a clear vision of end-of-the-year proficiency while also supporting the students to take state-level assessment items throughout the year.
The low performance of students is not the mystery that we have made it to be. It is also not unsolvable. Educators can admit that past definitions and approaches to curriculum have only created larger learning gaps. Steps can be taken by districts to lay the groundwork for success by creating frameworks of standards-based pacing guides, so teachers and students can be calibrated and aligned with state standards. Terminology between a resource and curriculum can be identified and clarity of state standards can be improved when leveraging key state documents. The mission of creating an equitable and accessible curriculum is possible in Missouri. We must expose and address the curriculum myth and confusion so that we can propel educators from an ineffective cycle of being on a hamster wheel and into a time of standard alignment and school improvement.
Sources. Marzano,R. The Levels of School Effectiveness. ( 2012 ). Marzano Research Group.
About the author:
Shauna Stephanchick is the President and Founder of STEP Up Consulting.
Twitter: @stepupeducator
