Curriculum Map (Based on the work of Heidi Hayes Jacobs and Janet Hale)

June May

April Marchy Februar Januaryr December Novembe

(Continued October

October

September Month

Designer: Amanda Armor

Common
Core
Standards

CC.1.2.1112.B - Cite
strong and
thorough
textual
evidence to
support
CC.1.2.1112.LRead and
comprehend
literary nonfiction and
informational

Content

Transcendentalism:
Then and Now
Enduring
Understandings:

B. Romantics Era Fiction

(choose from below):
Mark Twains
Huckleberry Finn.
Excerpt from Moby Dick
Herman
Melville

Skills

Assessments

DOK
Level

Professional Development Template

PD Designer: Amanda Armor
Focus (District, Building, Grade Level, Department, Study Group, etc.): Department

Professional Development Action Plan

Demographics

I. Laying the
Foundation

Classes are made up of between 19-30 11th Grade Honors American Literature Students. Most
of the students are driven to achieve and motivated by grades. They come from mostly uppermiddle class homes and parent involvement and interest in the school and happenings within it
are high. There are currently three teachers sharing the sections of this course. One is
relatively new to the profession (less than 5 years), the other is about middle of the road in her
career and the third is coming toward the end. All three are very interested in collaboration and
often share ideas and projects between them, as well as reach out to the teachers that have the
same set of students prior to their year and afterward. Two of the three are quite energetic and
dynamic in their style, and the other goes through spurts of the same behavior. One of the three
additionally teaches an AP Level course for seniors and wishes to hold similarly high standards to
the Honors students she has.
The mapping currently used in the district is somewhere between an individual teachers map
and a concensus map. The school (to my knowledge) doesnt refer their curriculum organizer as

a map, but it looks pretty similar to those identified by Jacobs and Johnson (2009). The
curricular organizers created and used by all district curriculum-team members are intended to
provide a simple and brief overview of what is meant to be taught in each course, but being
written by faculty representatives and reviewed by departments, it is based upon content,
lessons, and objectives that have been recently taught. The maps do not delineate schedule in
terms of actual school-year, but in terms of weeks taught for. There is also a column denoted
for notes and all district faculty are instructed to keep a desktop curriculum copy and take
notes and reflections in this column as they teach the units. This keeps it pretty up-to-date and
calls for many modifications and adjustments by the curriculum committee each year. Designed
to be a living document, all members of the district know this map as the Desktop
Curriculum and therefore there is consistency and familiarity with the system throughout al
school buildings and classrooms and all can have a hand in the growth of it each year.
One of the main goals of this process at the administrative level is to provide a forum for
teachers to workshop and discuss what is working and what is not. The maps help identify areas
of inconsistencies and provide a baseline to implement programs and lessons to address
deficiencies in students knowledge when used in conjunction with state testing and SAT/ACT
data. They empower the teachers to look at the data and the standards and build a curriculum
that they, the content-area-experts feel will work best.
In some ways, mainly due to the repetitive edits being made to the standards (where teachers
are told to apply new ones only to be told to apply newer ones still the following year), there is
still a bit of burn-out amongst faculty when it comes to curriculum work. There are teachers who
are actually angry about being placed on the committee because they find the tasks completed
to be busy work. But with the right leaders in place and some energizing professional
development, most of this dissatisfaction is quickly quashed.

II. Launching
the Process

The district has a unified vision, hung as a poster in every classroom and easily identifiable by
faculty and student-alike: to provide an academically rigorous learning experience in a
progressive environment, emphasizing civic responsibility and global awareness. This mission
statement is intended to drive the curriculum, and everything we do as a district, so all teachers,
administrators and students have direction in what they seek to do. Additionally, the Common
Core Standards (now rewritten as PA Common Core) are a part of this vision. They focus our
learning toward those objectives identified as most important for all students and provide further
direction for those teachers that are writing and revising curriculum, as well as those providing
input from the front lines as the curriculum is implemented.
The key players, as titled by Jacobs and Johnson (2009), would be an administrative team
made up primarily of Vice Principals and Assistant Superintendents. This is the team that
reviews where we are and make decisions about what needs to be modified and what is working.
At the top of this committee, is the Assistant Superintendent in charge of our grade levels (in our
case 7-12) who collect and approve any changes made to the curriculums before they are
posted publically. Though these gentlemen have the final approval or veto, they listen closely to
the thoughts and opinions of the curriculum committee members from the next level down
(those to write them for each content area) who bring to the table their own thoughts and
experiences, as well as the input from other members of their departments who are not a part of
the committees. The writers present their edits to the key players and discuss what they feel
about the results as well as the process itself at the end of the year.
There is still a ways to go with using the maps to build and modify support structures. Currently
the maps are used primarily as a talking-point between teachers and between teachers and
administrators. There doesnt seem to be much involvement, apart from a few particularly
hands-on vice principals, with the curriculum and its data. The date used to make decisions
among administrators is taken primarily from scores on PSSA, SAT and ACT tests.
Individual mapping and review are at work through the avenue of the desktop curriculum
reflections. The discussion horizontally with those teachers above and below your level is
already occurring as a part of our curriculum editing process as of this year. This is working well,
but there are still some improvements that need to occur. Prior to this year there were a number
of professional development days and an online forum dedicated to sharing assessments among

teachers. Doing this more purposefully, using the maps as a talking point during these
meetings, maybe even as a part of department meetings each month, could only improve the
process as we move into the 2013-14 school year. As Department Chairperson I could move
toward implementing this next fall.

III. Maintaining,
Sustaining, and
Integrating the
System

The maps being used right now, though modified through like-group and mixed-group
discussions, are primarily consensus-based models. The curriculum writers begin with the
district mission statement and Common Core Standards, then taking into account resources,
they develop the curriculum for the course. The curriculum committee members are tasked with
taking the lessons learned back to their department and providing professional development to
familiarize their colleagues with the concepts and terminology being applied. This too could
improve with a more purposeful professional development plan put in place by the key
players, but is is working fairly successfully right now.
With the current district push toward common assessments, mapping might be just the avenue
to achieve this with success. If a curriculum is well-written assessments should quite easily
align. Our current curriculum doesnt have assessment as a category, but I feel that it really
should. Adding this column, would encourage collaboration in and between departments and
movement in a singular unified direction in each class. While my course team is already
collaborating in this way and have established a number of common assessments from it, others
would greatly benefit from individual mapping so that common assessments can be discussed
and decided upon.
As schools move toward the adoption of and correlation with the Common Core, as well as the
roll-out of Keystone testing, it only makes sense to utilize the data for curricular decision-making.
In our district data days have been implemented to analyze data coming from PSSAs,
Keystones, NWEA Benchmark Assessments, SAT and ACT testing for use in our classroom at the
lesson-plan level. It would benefit the school greatly to apply this to curriculum-mapping as well.
With the Common Core, there has been a major push toward the literacy focus, but currently this
is only just beginning to be rolled out to the school as a whole. We did have a writing-across-thecurriculum initiative, but have yet to incorporate a read-across program. Curriculum-mapping
and professional development between the English curriculum committee and the other content
areas might just be the best way to make this happen. Requiring a reading and vocabulary
element on the standard curriculum map for all content areas would ensure this focus was at
work in every classroom. The professional development would need to be put in place to teach
faculty in other departments methods for teaching content-area vocab and reading.

IV. Advanced
Mapping Tasks

The key to maintaining these improvements and integrating it into our classroom teaching is to
select one focus in a semester or even in a year. Add it to the curriculum as a department
curriculum team the previous year and then teach it to our department colleagues in
professional development the following year so that we may begin to roll it out at a comfortable
pace. Too much at one time will not be successful, but keeping the pace slow and manageable
will keep the curriculum committee focused and energized as well as providing the teachers time
to learn and adjust to the new initiatives they are being tasked with.
Moving into the future it is important to view the maps as a living document, which we do
through the incorporation of written reflections on our desktop curriculums. I think retooling this
process so that the desktop curriculums and/or maps are a tool for end-of-term or end-of-year
discussions would improve the process and ultimately our curriculum with it. This would help
infuse curriculum discussions with fresh new perspectives each year and really get to the core of
what is and is not working and what the data proves.
Additionally, this retooling of the curriculum presents an opportunity to infuse technology into
our learning plans. I was a part of our schools recent BYOT (Bring Your Own Technology) pilot
program. Many teachers are still nervous in allowing these tools into their classroom, but
making it a part of curriculum, even at an optional level and giving them the tools to see how
these devices will HELP them, may make great strides in the right direction.
I am also excited about the idea that students can develop their own maps. What a great way to
develop the lines of communication between them and teachers and show them that teachers

care what they want and need from classes. This could be a true turning-point in education and
I think one our school should seriously consider.

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND HUMAN SERVICES

Curriculum Development and Evaluation ED 523
CURRICULUM MAPPING EVALUATION

Degrees of Performance
Sophisticated
Performan
4
ce
Indicators

Skillful
3

Developed
2

Appropriate
CCSS and PA
Academic
Standards are
included but
are randomly
aligned with
the content,
skills, and
assessments.

Literal
1

Not Included
0

1. Standards

Appropriate
CCSS and/or PA
Academic
Standards are
included and
are aligned
with the
content, skills,
and
assessments.

2. Enduring
Understandi
ngs

Enduring
Understanding
s are labeled
and included
under the unit
topic.

Enduring
Understan
dings are
not
included in
the map.

3. Essential
Questions

Essential
Questions are
labeled and
included under
the unit topic.

Essential
Questions
are not
included in
the map.

4. Unit Topic
and Content

Name of the
unit is written
in all capital
letters and
highlighted in

Name of the
unit is written
in lower case
letters and/or
not

Standards
are not
included in
the map.

The Unit
Topic
and/or the
Content
is/are not

5. Skills

6.
Assessments
(Summative
and
Formative)

bold. Content
is written as a
noun or noun
phrase and a
descriptor. A
letter/number
is assigned to
each major
content area to
denote
alignment.

highlighted in
bold. Content
is
inadequately
written as a
noun or noun
phrase and a
descriptor.
Too much
information is
presented. A
letter/number
is
inappropriatel
y assigned to
content areas
to denote
alignment.

included in
the map.

Skills are
written as a
measurable
verb and
content.

Skills are not

written as a
measurable
verb and
content.

Skills are
not
included in
the map.

To denote
alignment,
they use the
same
letter/number
designations
as the content.
A letter and/or
number is used
if more than
one skill aligns
with the
content.

Alignment is
limited or
does not exist
due to the
inappropriate
use of or lack
of a letter or
letter and
number
designation.

Summative and
Formative
assessments
include a
descriptor
depicting the
content involved
and the exact
nature of the type
of assessment.

Summative and
Formative
assessments do
not include a
descriptor
depicting the
content involved
and /or the exact
nature of the type
of assessment.

To denote
alignment, the
same
letter/number
designations as in
the content and
skills are used. If
one assessment

Alignment is
limited or does
not exist due to
the inappropriate
letter and/or
number
designations. FOR
and/or SUM are

Summative
and Formative
Assessments
are not
included in
the map.

aligns with more

than one content
component and/or
skill component,
multiple letters
and numbers are
used to show this
alignment. The
assessments are
also coded: FOR or
SUM.

not included or
are included for
some
assessments.

7. Depth of
Knowledge
(DOK) Level

The Depth of
Knowledge
(DOK) level is
included and
aligns with the
level of
cognitive
demand.

The Depth of
Knowledge
(DOK) level is
included
sporadically.
Alignment
with the level
of cognitive
demand is
limited.

8.
Demographic
s

Description of
the
educational
entity and the
status quo are
presented with
much detail
that clarifies
the context.

Description of
the
educational
entity and the
status quo are
presented with
some detail
that helps to
clarify the
context.

Description of
the
educational
entity and the
status quo are
presented
with limited
detail that
does not
assist with the
clarification of
the context.

Description
of the
educational
entity and
the status
quo are
presented
without
detail. Hence,
the context
remains
confusing.

The
demograph
ics are not
provided.

9. Phase I:
Laying the
Foundation

Phase I is
explained with
detail, depth,
and obvious
analysis
accurately
depicting the
prologue for
the mapping
process.

Phase I is
explained and
depicts the
prologue for
the mapping
process.

Phase I is
explained with
limited detail,
depth, and
analysis. The
prologue is
depicted with
questionable
relation to the
prologue.

Phase I lacks
significant
detail and
relevance to
the
prologue.

Phase I is
not
addressed.

10. Phase II:

Launching
the Process:

Implementatio
n of the
mapping
process is
described with
extensive

Implementatio
n of the
mapping
process is
described with
some detail

Implementatio
n of the
mapping
process is
described with
limited detail

Implementati
on of the
mapping
process is
unclear due
to the lack of

Phase II is
not
addressed.

The Depth
of
Knowledge
(DOK )
levels are
not
addressed.

detail and
insight and in
relation to the
context of the
school or
educational
entity.

and insight
and in relation
the context of
the school or
educational
entity.

and insight.

detail and
insight.

11. Phase III:

Maintaining,
Sustaining,
and
Integrating
the System

Next steps,
support, and
sustainability
are described
with much
detail, depth,
and obvious
analysis and in
relation to the
context of the
school or
educational
entity.

Next steps,
support, and
sustainability
are described
with detail,
some depth,
and some
analysis in
relation to the
context of the
school or
educational
entity.

Next steps,
support, and
sustainability
are described
with limited
detail, depth,
and analysis.

Next steps,
support, and
sustainability
are described
but are
unclear and
ambiguous
since detail
and analysis
are excluded.

Phase III is
not
addressed.

12. Phase IV:

Advanced
Mapping
Tasks

Curriculum
updates are
presented with
detail, insight,
and projections
as to changes
that would
reflect a 21st
century
curriculum.

Curriculum
updates are
presented with
detail, and
adequate
insight and
projections as
to changes
that would
reflect a 21st
century
curriculum.

Curriculum
updates are
presented
with limited
detail, insight,
and
projections as
to changes
that would
reflect a 21st
century
curriculum.

Curriculum
updates are
presented
but their
relation to a
21st century
curriculum is
dubious.

Phase IV is
not
addressed.

13.
Professionali
sm

The document
demonstrates
a high degree
of neatness,
organization,
preparation,
and quality.

Total:

/52

The
document is
underprepare
d in regard to
neatness,
organization,
and quality.