How do you Define Curriculum?

Although I work in an independent, progressive charter school that is just getting its feet wet compared with many other schools around the country, my definition of curriculum coming into this course was very much grounded in my own traditional K-12 experiences. I was willing to acknowledge the beauty of flexibility in the day-to-day work of educators and schools, but didn’t know what to call it. I considered the textbook to be the essential curriculum for many courses, whether appropriate or not ( I have thought NOT for a couple of years now...). I did not have the vocabulary necessary to describe my curricular observations. As a result of this course, I not only have access to an improved lexicon around curriculum in education, I have a much greater understanding of and appreciation for where we have been and where we are going in curriculum and assessment design.

Most certainly my favorite new phrase is “ideal curriculum.” This is the life-blood of the school. For a charter school, I see this as the essential first ideas put in writing by the founders of the school. The written, taught, tested, support, hidden, and other curriculum designations all branch out of the ideal curriculum, so it is very important that everyone (or as many people as possible) working at the school is authentically in agreement with it. For the school at which I work and for any future school thereafter, I would like to ensure that I am authentically in agreement with the established ideal curriculum. This ideal curriculum, which manifests itself in the vision or mission statement in many ways, should include Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles, Paideia learning, differentiation strategies (OK, have to admit - I LOVED the Tomlinson text) and 21st Century learning experiences that are commensurate with reality, well-integrated, and tied to flexible assessment practices.

If someone were to have asked me for my definition of a written curriculum before this course, I would have probably mumbled something about the combination of textbooks and scope & sequence guides. I now realize that textbooks are not part of the written curriculum; instead, they serve as support curriculum for the written and taught curricula and their adoption and use should not be taken lightly. Scope & sequence guides are undeniably a part of the written curriculum, and should be accompanied by a list of essential questions and ties to the state or Common Core standards. I am glad we started with the Glatthorn text in leaning about developing and analyzing a written curriculum, as it provided a formal structure upon which future understanding or alterations could be built. I can see how truly vital it is for all stakeholders to have a part in the development of a written curriculum, and that rushing it can be a costly mistake. I have suggested the creation of a legitimate Curriculum Planning Council to my school’s Governing Council, and I hope they will consider it a necessary component to our current curriculum efforts.

Research has demonstrated time and time again that the single most important factor in student learning and performance is the effectiveness of the teacher in the room. This is where the taught (& learned) curriculum - the reality of what is actually presented to students and how it is done - becomes very important, perhaps even more so than the written curriculum. In order for effective monitoring and evaluation to occur, the school administrator has to rely on his/her teachers to follow the ideal and written curricula at a fairly high level. Teachers deserve (and should be given) a fair amount of classroom autonomy, but their actions should be justifiable based on best practices that are well-aligned with the ideal and written curricula. I consider the taught and support curricula to be inextricably bound, and would propose that the individual teacher create his/her own support curriculum. I believe that because of this, the taught curriculum is the one that requires the most financial AND human resources. It should be the primary focus of any school-based administrator, through a combination of intensive PD support, time allocation, money allocation, and strict standards for monitoring and evaluation. If the taught curriculum is reinforced in this way, many cogs will fall into place.

Authentic assessment is a common discussion thread in this course, and has taken center stage in many cohort discussions before it as well. It is discussed at every level, from the individual classroom to the national and even international stage. Our Jacobs text makes one very simple, extraordinarily clear statement that we must overhaul our curriculum to make it more appropriate for our ever-changing world, and that the overhaul should begin with assessment design. The tested curriculum is, at its core, our goal. We were asked earlier in this course about the purpose of schooling, and I have asked many students at my school the same question since then. My response was essentially related to the students’ future roles as citizens of the world. We have to prepare them to be successful engaging in various epistemologies and utilizing a variety of technologies in the process. While some students were able to give me answers relating to creativity and exploration, or even citizenship, the primary response I still get is “to be prepared for college and get a good job.” While that may truly be an objective of the school, it is most certainly not seen as our purpose to exist. Even with most of our students thinking that way, it is still very difficult to explain the purpose behind the annual state standardized exam. It is not reflective of their course work or shared experiences, and yet they must perform - why is that? We need to reform our assessments to be more indicative of what we actually want our students to be able to do. Last I checked, being able to correctly solve 40 multiple choice problems was at the bottom of my list. These assessments should also be flexible, and allow students to engage the material in a variety of ways (UDL, Jacobs). Whenever possible, legitimate technology use should be a part of it. Why write a paper every time if a multimedia presentation would do the job just as well (or even better)?

I were asked to define curriculum today, February 20th, 2011, I would say that it is the way we describe a school’s essential purpose and its corresponding reality. To put it another way, I would couch it as I did earlier in the course. It is an idealistic composite of proposed experiences and desired outcomes (ideal, written, & tested curriculum), blended with the reality of daily occurrences (taught, learned, organic, & hidden curriculum). If pried for more detail, I would engage the person with questions. I am fairly confident that I would be far better off trying to get them to understand what curriculum is through their own lenses than I would be given them a lecture about it. I might ask them some of the following questions:

• Why do you exist? What do you feel is your purpose?
• Why do schools exist? What do you feel is their primary purpose?
• In your profession, what have been some of the peak experiences and why?
• How do you feel it is most fair to assess a person’s work?
• Are all people capable of demonstrating the same skill in the same way?
• What is differentiation? (I really don't think most teachers know - I didn't know nearly enough until I read the Tomlinson text and now I want to know more...)
• What are the most interesting ideas you’ve ever discussed?

If you’re reading this, feel free to think about your own answers to one or more of these questions. What do you think? Feel free to comment...

John

Technology & Curriculum

I have decided to use VoiceThread to respond to these questions. You can access it here. Please have a look & listen, and then comment. I would love to hear your thoughts!

John

UDL / Differentiation / Tech Integration & PD Action Research Project Demo Photo

The School & The Curriculum: My Philosophical Belief Structure

School is essentially our opportunity to prepare our youth (1st phase) for diverse roles in their 2nd (citizenship) and 3rd (statesman) phases of life. My views about how schooling can do this are fairly well aligned with those of Mr. Mortimer J. Adler, whose Paideia Proposal still hasn’t been faithfully implemented by many (if any) schools around the world. In his Proposal, Adler calls for a “basic education” common to all students in the entire country. He outlines the general instructional approach, an even more generalized course of study, and proposes that the specific community and school make final decisions about how to implement the program and round it out with courses and extracurricular activities specific to the area. From this basic introduction of beliefs, I’d like to expand and offer my more personal views about what it means and how to make it happen.

I believe that, in every year of K-12 education, students should study Mathematics, English Language Arts, Foreign Language, Literature, History, Science, Physical Education, and either Art or Music. In addition, a 9th course should be offered which is offered as an experiential supplement to their general course of study. This 9th course would include things such as Home Economics, Keyboarding, Web Design, General Automotive Work (oil changes, etc.), Computer Programming, Health, and more. This 9th course is meant to be that which prepares the student for life in the modern world beyond the general and interdisciplinary work done in the other 8 courses. This would provide a wonderful opportunity for students to learn about technology that is not integrated into the general classroom, such as hardware and software design, animation, accounting, etc. These students are going to live primarily in the 21st century, and every effort should be made to ensure that they are successful, productive citizens in that realm. The 9 courses proposed above would be the only courses. There would be no electives, other than allowing students to choose their own foreign language and whether to study art or music more specifically during their high school years. Anything outside of the proposed curriculum is by definition extracurricular and should be offered only before and/or after normal school hours.

I believe that students learn best by forming their own conclusions from shared experiences. The school curriculum should offer experiences to the student which will allow for them to form an accurate conclusion about a particular idea, and the teacher-facilitator should serve as the students’ guide in the process, not merely a fact-checker. In our modern schools, we strive to impart thousands of years of human wisdom and discoveries to our youth in 12-13 years’ time. I believe this to be unrealistic, particularly when many of our students do not see the value in the discovery and have no interest in understanding a concept that their teacher isn’t even passionate about. Students should strive for conceptual understanding, realizing that while we may never truly understand something in full, the pursuit of understanding will provide us a sound education and fuller life.

In order for schools to be effective, they must be willing to connect all the primary stakeholders in the area. If the school can get community members, parents, and students all working together, the experiences available to students will be more diverse and more enriching. I believe that lengthy portions of the school year (at least two week blocks) should be taken out of the regular schedule for interdisciplinary projects, service projects, and field experiences (local, national, & international). The school should never stop providing experiences for students, and bringing in parents and other community members to share in the experiences with students will help tie the school to its rightful place as an anchor of the local community.

My work thus far as an instructor demonstrates these beliefs in the way I teach. We use the Paideia methods of instruction at my school, though it is not occurring with enough regularity for me to call our school a true Paideia school. I focus my teaching efforts primarily on producing critical thought, problem solving, and discussion amongst small groups of students. I put them in situations where they require those skills to solve a problem, and I never give an algorithm (I am a math teacher) in situations where students can solve the problem with what they already know. In fact, I have often seen students produce the algorithm themselves through discussion and critical thought. Our students have thus far done very well in the American Experiment that is our school, scoring well above state averages on standardized assessments. Truthfully, however, I feel it is not enough. The school could be doing more to be a long-standing member of the community. It could be more efficient and consistent with the Paideia method of instruction, and its curriculum could be developed more to facilitate teacher autonomy. Most importantly, the school could be doing a better job to mentor new teachers to use the Paideia methodology effectively. I hope to do more work in my education career to bring the true Paideia school into reality, as I believe from what I have read and experienced that there is no better way to organize a school’s curriculum for any diverse system of learners.

Post-Observation Conference

For my first full clinical cycle, I chose to observe Ms. W, a 6th grade language arts teacher. She is currently in her first full year of teaching in the United States, but has taught a year and a half in Kazakhstan while in the Peace Corps. The lesson I observed was essentially comprised of a P.O.D. (Problem(s) of the Day), a short shared-inquiry discussion about a fable, and student group work on creating an original fable with the same moral as the one which was discussed. The setting I chose for the post-observation conference was a teacher’s lounge, as it was the most convenient place for Ms. W, and I do not have my own office. It is not an ideal situation, as another faculty or staff member could have walked in at any moment, but we were luckily uninterrupted. I expected the conference to last about 30 minutes, but we wound up talking for about 50 minutes! I believe there are two reasons for this. First, I think it has to do with the collaborative spirit of both Ms. W. and myself, as we found plenty to talk about and share a passion for our jobs. Second, I has Ms. W. complete the “Clinical Dialect Preference Survey” in the Pajak book and she came out on the line between Orchestrating and Caregiving. This had several implications for our work together, and meant I only had to move over one wedge on the Clincal Language Circle (I came up on the line between Liberating and Idealizing). In order to use the length of the video and the fact that I have it recorded, I have decided to complete this reflection using time tags. Each strength/improvement reflection statement begins with the time at which I observed it in the video.

00:00 - 04:04: I welcomed Ms. W. into the post-observation conference room I had chosen, and then gave her two items. I allowed her to see the questions I was planning to ask during the observation to guide her pre-discussion reflection AND I actually gave her my observation notes and data analysis work from the completed observation were were about to discuss. This was a total of 8 pages for her to review, which I think was too overwhelming and I would consider a different strategy for the next conference. However, I do think it was wise to give her the questions before asking the first one, as it was very helpful to have her reflect on the lesson before beginning a dialogue about the would have/could have/should have’s of the lesson. This is also a good moment to reflect on the seating arrangement. I am seated at the “end” of the small table, with my back to the windows and facing the door. Ms. W. is seated to my right so that she has the windows roughly to her left and the door to her right. I think this arrangement was effective for collaborative dialogue, as we were able to engage with the observation data together; we were able to apply equal voice to the situation.

04:05: I finally asked my first question! I asked what she felt was most and least successful about the lesson. I think this is a strength as a first question, as it encourages the instructor to begin the constructive dialogue, so that much of the remainder of the meeting can be spent collaboratively and with me as a coach. She talked for two minutes, and now I had to come up with a good follow-up question that wouldn’t derail the conversation from either of our expectations. Uh-oh, I put my hand up on my head! Only for a split second, but that’s an awkward body gesture...

06:02: I restated one of her concerns, and asked, “If it’s something that’s inside your control, do you think you would address it differently in the future?” This was a great constructive moment, as her response was reflective and positive. I really felt that she was throwing out ideas that she plans to try - she was excited about ideas coming out of her mouth (she told me this afterward; she was nervous being on camera so reserved some of her emotions).

07:55: I acknowledge her wonderful ideas and a “shift from some more teacher-centered to student-centered activities.” She reiterates that she is always attempting to keep the learning focus student-centered, and we move on to the next question, but not before I put my hand up on the top of my head again! Eek! This is one facet of body language that I need to address before my next conference.

08:20: “What role did the students play in determining the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the lesson?” This was my attempt to bring up the purposeful observation mentality of student attitudes, behaviors, and learning. This is when we had a great conversation about the “atmosphere” of the room, including student response and attitude. This worked well to lead me to the next question about discussion assessment. Shared inquiry discussions are a vital aspect of learning at my school, and it’s a continual talking point at PLC meetings and professional development weeks. My line of questioning in this 8-minute segment is strong, as she is responding with reflective ideas about how to assess shared inquiry discussions that could potentially be of assistance to other faculty members. This part of the conference became a strong collaborative dialogue. We finished this segment by talking about Paideia strategies, a staple of our school’s vision. She talked about how her actions correlated to the Paideia columns of didactic instruction, coached projects, and shared-inquiry discussions. At 15:08, I talked more than I had throughout the first 15 minutes of the conference, as I saw it as an opportunity to give Ms. W. direct feedback about her facilitation with Paideia instructional techniques.

16:30: We are back on the P.O.D, as Ms. W. was very (delightfully) surprised about the student achievement at the board. Ms. W. was speaking very “matter-of-factly” (her words) due to nerves, so I used this as an opportunity to get her to laugh. She had experienced something very positive related to students, and we had to celebrate it together!

17:20: I asked her about the classroom norms, as there are none posted on the walls and yet her students seem to be abiding by something...This was a legitimate wondering of mine, so I posed it that way. I asked her what strategy(ies) she used to establish these unspoken norms, and as it turns out, the 6th grade team had met about it and come up with the strategies together. The core of it is respect, and they’ve chosen to focus on that word in detail in order to get the students to live and learn within those appropriate boundaries. During this part of the conference, I began the ancient art of pen-twirling! Far too often, the business end of the pen was pointing in directions other than the paper, including inadvertently at Ms. W. As I watch this video, I see good posture, good questions, and great collaborative dialogue; however, I am noticing that my body language and gestures are obscure and potentially distracting.

21:02: I ask Ms. W. to look at my observation data - in particular, at the student responses when I asked them to tell me what they were doing, and how it related to where they have been and where they are going. Ms. W. was grateful for the opportunity to evaluate the clarity of the student objectives through the eyes of the students, and used this time to posture about why they might be unclear about the objectives - particularly concerning the “where we are going” piece. This discussion turned into a dialogue about unit planning, and we shared ideas about her specific course planning and objectives (including how they are delivered to students). \

26:33: This is where I reminded Ms. W. about her Pre-Observation Conference and specific focus areas she had given me for the observation. This included her role as facilitator, the seating arrangement, and the Paideia method. I decided to lead her through the dialogue by pointing her to the data in the packet I had given her. It turns out that everything she pointed out in the pre-observation conference was on my list of concerns, and there were no concerns beyond them. It surprised me that she had been so effectively reflective before the observation, and I pointed it out to her as a strength. We talked about ideas for improving the seating arrangement, and since I teach at the school as well, I was able to give her some very real input about how to move our trap tables around for a more effective arrangement. Ms. W. sees the seating chart concept as “like a virus,” in that, as teachers, we are continually changing seating charts to see how students change attitude and behavior as a result (if at all). Ms. W. also informed me of the fact that her building (she is the only teacher in her building - the rest is taken up by administration and a museum) does not have the same fire code regulations as the rest of the school. This was surprising and I know I have to follow-up to check the accuracy of this statement.

33:42: It was finally time for the most difficult conversation - that about teacher presence and facilitating the learning environment. Ms. W. was rated “Apprentice” in this category, and though it was only for a couple of small things, I knew it could be a difficult conversation. In watching my posture during this difficult time of feedback, I think I did well. I spoke with a tone of positivity and constructivism, and though she hiccuped a bit with negative body language, she came through on the end with a constructivist tone and we regained our collaborative spirit. I used the language of “wondering” as much as possible so that she would see it as nondirect and collaborative - never direct. I did a lot of reflecting, presenting, and problem solving in this span of time, while only reinforcing positive behaviors. I thought this part of the conference would be much more difficult than it was, but my role as a teacher at the school helped me speak on the same level very effectively. I wrapped it up with a summarization comment so that we could be clear about which problems had to be solved and which areas were strengths.

39:01: At this point, I got a little carried away with compliments. I was so pleased with the way the conference was going that I found every compliment I could. I meant it all, and my body posture improved dramatically during this time. It turns out that I’m very comfortable with these conversations, and I liked being able to run the conference to the end with positivity. We finished the conference by sharing stories and strategies and talking about interesting aspects of what we do. I also suggested that she use this as an opportunity to share with our administrator in carrying out her Professional Development Plan. After we realized the time, we wrapped things up and moved on about our day.

Though I will probably not ever videotape myself doing this again, I am very grateful that I did this time. I have a strength as a listener and collaborator, and hope to work down my nonverbal conversation issues to marginalize my body language at future conferences. I am a little apprehensive about extrapolating this process over a full school of teachers, but I know it is an important process and hope to be effective in that larger capacity.

Seating Arrangements

Figure 2: Figure 1:

As Cottonwood Classical Preparatory School is mostly a Paiadeia school (we offer the IB Diploma Programme to 11th and 12th graders), our teachers are expected to instruct primarily through projects and shared inquiry discussions. As you can see from my included diagrams, this provides two distinct types of seating arrangement. One is the roughly 75%-of-the-time Project/Didactic setup (Figure 1). In this setup, the teacher is often very mobile. He/she is expected to coach students through projects and perform limited didactic instruction from the front of the room at the SMARTboard or whiteboard. Our school has almost exclusively trapezoidal (trap) tables. Desks in rows are NOT an option! They can be grouped in a hexagonal fashion, and since our average class size is 15, we only need three hexagons to accommodate a full class of students. This is essentially the same as a “cluster” setup. The other room type used is that of the shared inquiry discussion (Figure 2). Teachers arrange the trap tables in a roughly elliptical shape if the class sizes are small enough – if they must, they have been observed creating a messing circular shape out of the trap tables so that everyone can participate in the discussion.

When I walked around to verify that every room is set up in one of these two ways, I was only surprised by the rough percentage of rooms set up each way. Instead of approximately 75% Project/Didactic setups and 25% Shared Inquiry setups, I found about 60% Project/Didactic and 40% Shared Inquiry. It seems as though many of the Humanities instructors keep their room in the Shared Inquiry setup most of the time. After speaking with a few of the Humanities instructors, I found that one of the primary goals of their department this year is to incorporate more Shared Inquiry seminars into the instructional plan. Rearranging the seating in each room is one method they have decided to employ in order to accomplish this goal.

I noticed that the teacher desks (for rooms that have one) were typically across from the main entry door, furthest from the exit; however, I only saw two teachers sitting at these desks out of the 12 rooms I observed. Teachers move around a lot at this school, and the desks are arranged in such a way to accommodate this excessive foot traffic. I observed multiple teachers either sitting with students, or leaned over/squatting at one of the hexagonal tables. There was a lot of cooperative learning going on, with only 3 of the 12 teachers utilizing didactic lecture at the time I walked around the building.

Students with special needs were not always near the doors, even if it seems it would be best for the child to be located in such a position due to physical disabilities. This is one core issue I found for highlighting when I speak to faculty members about seating arrangements. I also found that only 5 of the 12 rooms had one or more computers available for student use. Although we have laptop carts (and single computers) available for checkout, many instructors did not have any available for student use. Also, 6 of the 12 classrooms are equipped with a SMARTboard, but many of them are not adequately set up for use. I will be bringing this up with our facilities manager this week.

I think this information is valuable for staff development in that I could bring them all on a walkthrough of the school and have them create a plus/delta chart for room improvement in each room. This would be beneficial for faculty members and students, and I think a change would occur almost immediately where appropriate. In supervision, I think it’s best to observe as if you are a student – sit where the students sit, work a little as the students do, and get a student view of instruction and purpose for the day’s lesson. This will assist the post-observation discussion, as the supervisor will be better able to focus the constructive comments on student achievement.

I'm feeling some CHANGE

Marzano outlines the following seven responsibilities of a school leader as being most necessary for second-order change, in order of importance:

1) Knowledge of Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
2) Optimizer
3) Intellectual Stimulation
4) Change Agent
5) Monitoring/Evaluating
6) Flexibility
7) Ideals/Beliefs

It seems to me from the reading and from personal perspective that the effective school leader must be extremely thoughtful and flexible due to the complex nature of innovation. Second-order change requires a swift and direct change in strategies to address Type III problems – those that cannot be solved with the status quo and require deeper thought and innovative ideas.

In the past three weeks, I have been thrust into a leadership case study of sorts at my own school. I can see the tangibility of our studies before my eyes. At the highest level of leadership, we have transitioned from transformational to transactional, placing our faculty leaders in a position of leadership not often found in public schools. I have experienced second order change at this school in its first two years of existence, and am now observing our administration attempting to use the status quo of other institutions at our school to address mostly Type I and II problems. I can see how the lack of authentic leadership is affecting our school culture, and find myself in an unintended position of instructional leadership.

I have been a change agent at my school for the past year and a half, and feel more pressure than ever to continue in this role. I have to serve as an optimizer for my fellow department chairs as we interact with a new administration with little to no knowledge of our instructional practices. Even while teaching five classes (out of six in the schedule) of four different math courses, I feel as though I am experiencing all seven of the responsibilities listed above without any formality. I am fixing the master schedule, student schedules, and technology issues. I am answering questions about curriculum, school culture, technology, assessment, professional development, and much more. I didn’t intend for my internship to be this realistic, and look forward to feeling the reality of the position more and more. I just hope my classes don’t suffer too much, as teaching is my first love in education…