Running head: Rewriting Curriculum Standards

Culminating Paper CT802:

Rewriting the Curriculum Standards for Cristo Rey Network

Michael Medeiros

The University of Kansas

Rewriting Curriculum Standards

Five years ago, as I was finishing my studies for my Bachelors in Education, with

an emphasis in secondary mathematics, I began to hear about the common core state

standards. Most of my professors, in particular Dr. Barger, my methods instruction,

were in favor of them because, as she stated, they were particularly helpful in aiding

teachers who may have to change schools without having to align to an entirely new

curriculum (Barger, 2012). When I entered my first classroom, working for a private

school, I was hired to fill an immediate need for them before I had completed my

certification; I was presented with the standards and benchmarks that were used. They

were, not being common core or any states standards, a bit thin. They were not clearly

written, nor were they rigorous to the courses in mathematics I was to teach. The

following fall of 2012, I joined a teacher committee that would supply suggestions and

recommendations to a consulting firm that was rewriting the standards and benchmarks

for our network of schools. I thought this a great opportunity, though I did feel I was

under qualified for the task. I felt afterward that the process did not go well. None of

the recommendations from the committee were heeded and I felt the results were not

much better than what we had replaced. There will be some updates to these standards

this summer, but I feel that the network is still not approaching the curriculum planning

process in a way that will take into account the thoughts and opinions of stakeholders.

The network plan also does not provide a timeline that will complete and continue to

improve these standards over time. I will discuss in this article the process I believe the

network should be taking as we move forward with curriculum planning. My plan has a

two-year timeline, after which each network school will implement the new curriculum.

For clarity, I will make the assumption that my planning proposal has been accepted

and we will begin work in late spring, 2016.

Rewriting Curriculum Standards

If we are going to build a goal-based model of instruction, one that has clear

guidelines that are to be followed by administrators and instructors alike, we need to use

what is referred to in the textbook Curriculum Leadership as Organizational

Strategies (Glatthorn, Boschee, Whitehead, & Boschee, 2016, p. 191). We need to have

a clear idea on what is to be done by district leaders, in our case the network, and by the

individual schools. We need to know what advisory groups are necessary and we must

know what leadership roles will be played by teachers and administrative professionals

(Glatthorn et al., 2016, p. 191). It is my contention that we begin with a curriculum

team. This could be comprised of a hired team that works at the network level for all

subjects, or if financial considerations are at play, we can compose the team of math

teachers and administrators from the local levels that will serve for a finite length of

time. This team will meet soon following the end of the academic year and make

decisions about contributors and timelines that I will discuss presently. This team

should consist of 6-12 members (Glatthorn et al., 2016, p. 195). In addition to the

curriculum team, there should be a team at each school that is actively and often

involved in the process. Glatthorn et al. makes the point (2016), The key is to identify

and analyze leadership functions required at both the district and school levels (p. 197).

While the curriculum team should be in constant communication by email, and meet

weekly over Skype or a similar service, the individual school teams should meet once a

month in a live setting as a group as well as once every other month in an open meeting

extending the invitation to other stakeholders such as: teachers not on the committee;

administrators; parents; and board members.

Rewriting Curriculum Standards

The network for our schools is composed of 30 schools in 19 states with 100% of

our 10,000 students coming from a lower socioeconomic background (Schools, n.d.)

According to Glatthorn (2016), An early goal of any curriculum team is to visit selected

schools, interview teachers and students and review materials (p. 222). Since we are so

spread out across the country, it would be very challenging to visit each school in the

network. Because of this, we should have each school report to the committee before

departing for the summer. The math department in each school should prepare a

summary of current network standards that they believe should remain in place, which

ones should be moved or removed and any preliminary suggestions for improvements.

By having 30 departments create these documents we are making the teachers and

administrators at each school a stakeholder in what will eventually be a new set of

standards.

During the first summer, 2016, of the process to update the curriculum, the

curriculum committee will meet to pour over the data sent by each of the network

schools. This will be the time to make decisions on what educational goals are to be

achieved by the new set of standards. One issue that must be dealt with when having

teachers supply the recommendations is how varied they will be in scope and rigor

(Marzano, 2000). These standards are not required to be fully integrated within a math

framework. Glatthorn et al. writes that many educators mistakenly assume that each

goal must be a curriculum goal (2016, p.201). The committee will select which of the

recommendations sent in by the member schools need to be addressed by the courses of

study in math or if they will be presented by alternative means. Once the goals of the

curriculum are initially set by the committee, they should be sent to member schools for

review and initial feedback.

Rewriting Curriculum Standards

As teachers and administrators return to the classroom in the fall of 2016, they

will find the preliminary goals of curriculum waiting for their review. Each teacher

should report directly to their school team any suggestions or concerns. The school

teams will then meet at their monthly time and relay all feedback to the network

curriculum team. It is during the fall semester of 2016 that these meetings will continue

to prepare the network committee for culminating all of the data in the spring of 2017.

This report should then be sent to the network president for approval. This is very

similar to Step 4 of Glatthorn et al.s curriculum development and implementation

process (2016, p. 348).

When approval has been sent to the committee from the network President, the

curriculum benchmarks will be in place. This should be no later than February of 2017.

The next step to complete will be organizing the curriculum design. This includes

designing the units and lessons, writing pre-assessments, and identifying mastery

objectives (Glatthorn et al., 2016, p. 381-385). This will be a collaborative effort. As in

the fall, 2016, weekly and monthly meetings will continue shifting focus to these new

objectives. Reports and feedback will flow from school to committee and back as the

organization becomes more complete. As individual units are taking shape, individual

schools can start to specialize in those individual units, allowing a fewer set of minds to

focus on that unit and its benchmarks allowing each member school to do a more

thorough and precise creation of standard.

As the academic year 2016-17 draws to a close, a clear curriculum with a

mathematical framework should be nearly complete. This curriculum should include:

pacing guides, benchmarks, learning goals, and pre-assessments. Pilot schools will need

to be chosen to implement the standards for a year before they are reviewed and
Rewriting Curriculum Standards

tweaked before the network rollout. Three to six of the network schools should be

chosen to pilot the curriculum for the 2017-18 school year. We must be careful in

choosing schools for the pilot program. We should avoid the top and bottom five

performing schools as not to interfere immediately with a successful program or one

that is trying various interventions for improvement. Of the twenty remaining schools,

we can narrow the list down to the three to six we need by using teacher data. We

should use the Indicators of Effective Teaching found as Exhibit 12-4 in Curriculum

Leadership (2016). Teachers piloting the new standards should be effective teachers

that exhibit high degrees of: planning, implementation, evaluation, classroom

management, and professional (Glatthorn et al., 2016, p. 423-425). A survey of school

administrators evaluating the math teachers within the department should provide the

committee with the information needed to decide which of the schools will be sent the

new curriculum.

As the 2017-18 academic calendar progresses, the pilot schools will be reporting

to the committee any feedback on an ongoing basis. As this is happening, the committee

can shift their focus toward creating end of course (EOC) exams to be used in the spring

of 2018. To paraphrase Curriculum Leadership, throughout the assessment creation

process, the committee should be sure the assessment aligns with the created

benchmarks, what form the test will take, whether that is digital or printed, and how

many versions of the test are to be created. It is important to make sure the tests are

valid, and that some early versions are available to the pilot schools (Glatthorn et al.,

2016, p. 387).

The pilot schools will develop instructional aides that can be used as lesson plans

for the network during the full rollout. This task can be divided among the pilot schools
Rewriting Curriculum Standards

so as to make the calendar year a little less stressful. Forms such as the Management

and Monitoring Matrix, a Sample Yearly Planning guide, and Unit Planning Charts

can be used (Glatthorn et al., 2016, p. 389-391). Common core state standards have a

form called the EQuIP that can also be used that will allow other teachers and

administrators to peer review these lesson plans before they gain network approval

(Rubrics, 2016).

At the close of the 2017-18 academic year, the committee will collect feedback

from all pilot schools and make any changes or revisions before sending the completed

curriculum for network approval. Once the approval has been obtained, the new

curriculum will be sent to all network schools to begin the 2018-19 school calendar.

Before the standards can be implemented network wide decisions will need to be made

as to textbooks, software utilities and other integrations of the classroom. The pilot

schools will include in their assessments of the previous academic year a list of possible

materials and resources for fully integrating the curriculum. After a list has been

created and narrowed, the entire staff should consider for review the highest ranked

(Glatthorn et al., 2016, p. 358). Of these the committee will make a final selection. This

should occur by June 2018 so materials may be ordered, printed, and shipped in time

for the 2018-19 school year.

Before instruction can begin in 2018-19, we must have professional development

opportunities for the teachers that will be implementing this curriculum (Glatthorn et

al., 2016, p. 395). A week before the students return after the summer, teachers arrive

to set up their classrooms and attend meetings for the upcoming year. The math

teachers during this time will have two days of workshops that will prepare them for the

year. A study found, It is possible to improve teachers' content knowledge through the
Rewriting Curriculum Standards

use of and focus on curriculum materials in professional development opportunities.

The curriculum materials and the nature of curriculum-focused workshops resulted in

an increase in content knowledge and an understanding of the importance of inquiry

and collaborative teaching strategies (Patel, Franco, Miura, Boyd, 2012). Since it is

proven that collaborative teaching strategies are important, we will bring teachers

together in clusters of about five schools each dictated by geographical location. Two

members of the curriculum committee will be at each location as well representatives

from the pilot schools. This two day workshop will allow the experienced and the

inexperienced to share and make this new curriculum a collaborative effort.

As we begin to implement this new curriculum throughout the network it is critical

that we have buy-in from our teachers. They are the foundation that education in our

network is built around. Bantwini states (2010), it would be irrational and nave to

expect teachers easily or without any objections to accept educational reforms. To

question and have reservations about newly introduced phenomena is only human (p.

83). If the teachers do not feel a sense of ownership of the curriculum, they could

potentially disregard them for their own (Glatthorn et al., 2016, p. 327). It is, for this

reason, critical that every step of the way, all network educators feel welcome and

supported. This is the greatest implication for our network moving forward with this

process.

If we are to be successful in this curriculum restructure, we must do the things that

will ensure successful planning (Glatthorn et al., 2016, p. 199). The feedback received

from educators must be heeded without reservation. No one member during this

process should be held above all others. The problem with the standards in place

currently is that when charged with rewriting the network standards, the previous
Rewriting Curriculum Standards

consulting firm did not accept the recommendations from the staff. This led to

improperly written standards that were not relevant to our students. The teachers did

not buy-in to this new curriculum and instruction has suffered as a result. Every year,

before leaving for the summer, each teacher must report to the network the results of

the EOC exam. Scores steadily increased over time under the previous standards, and

there was a marked decline last year with the new tests (Cristo Rey, 2015). We have yet

to administer tests this year, so we do not have the results of the second year of these

standards. However, with so many teachers sending in their complaints (Mary Kallman,

personal communication, 2015) it is clear changes need to be made. When we do this

the right way, when we create a curriculum that is valid and rigorous, The beneficiary is

the student (Patel, et al., 2012).

Rewriting Curriculum Standards

References

Bantwini, B. D. (2010). How teachers perceive the new curriculum reform: Lessons

from a school district in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. International

Journal of Educational Development, 30(1), 83-90.

doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2009.06.002

Barger, R. (2012, Spring). Methods Course. Lecture presented in UMKC, Kansas City.

Cristo Rey EOC Test Scores 2011-2015. (2015). Cristo Rey Network [Data File].

Glatthorn, A. A., Boschee, F., Whitehead, B. M., & Boschee, B. F. (2016). Curriculum

leadership: Strategies for development and implementation (4th ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Marzano, R. (2000). Implementing Standards-Based Education. Teacher Librarian,

28(2), 30.

Patel, N., Franco, S., Miura, Y., & Boyd, B. (2012). Including Curriculum Focus in

Mathematics Professional Development for Middle-School Mathematics

Teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 112(5), 300-309. doi:10.1111/j.1949-

8594.2012.00146.x

Rubrics and Feedback Forms. (2016). Retrieved May 03, 2016, from

http://www.achieve.org/our-initiatives/equip/rubrics-and-feedback-forms

Schools. (n.d.). Retrieved April 29, 2016, from

http://www.cristoreynetwork.org/page.cfm?p=353