Effective Curricula for Improving Student Achievement

1. Effective Curriculafor Improving Student Achievement PRI School Board Training Seminar Manchester Hyatt, San Diego November 30, 2005, 10:45 am to Noon Presenter:Alice R. Furry, Ph.D.Chief Administrative OfficerReading Lions CenterSacramento County Office of Education

2. “We have lots of information technology.We just don’t have anyinformation.”

3. Education Week November 16, 2005

4. Aptitude for Learningversus Mastery of Content and Skills “Our education system increasingly is focusing NOT on development children’s aptitude for learning – their ability to absorb new information quickly and solve problems creatively – but on their academic achievements – their mastery of particular subjects and skills as proven by performance on standardized tests.” Ed Week (November 16, 2005, 25:12, p.32)

5. When are both optimal? • In California’s public schools, basic content and skills need to be mastered throughout the elementary grades. • Mastery of these technical skills supports the development of learning aptitude from the upper/intermediate grades through high school and postsecondary schooling.

6. Quick Course on Local Board Authority for Curriculum and Instruction In California -- Local school board historically is responsible for determining the subjects to teach and how to teach them within State Education Codes. In the late 1990s, as a result of the national standards movement, the state board through legislation, has been required to approve content standards, embed content standards in the curricular frameworks, and require state assessments on the content standards – all of which have had an increasing influence on local school board choices.

7. State mandates several academic subjects for all public schools: Mathematics English/Language Arts History/Social Science Science K-12 Content Standards

8. State school board has authority over curricular frameworks in mandated academic subjects and other non-mandated subjects (Physical Education, Health, Fine Arts, Foreign Languages) Frameworks address what should be included in a given course of study (and are required to include the state-adopted content standards) Frameworks serve as guide to the Local School Board and District (and Textbook Developers) www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf Curricular Frameworks

9. State Board of Education • Recommends curriculum materials and instructional practices • Adopts textbooks for K-8 and other instructional materials (each subject by grade level matched to content standards) www.cde.ca.gov/ci/cr/cf

10. Curriculum Framework Development and Approval Process This chart shows the major components of the framework. Time involved is approximately 18 months from first meeting to State Board approval.

11. Instructional Materials Adoption Process This flowchart shows the sequence of major components of California’s Instructional Materials Adoption Process. From the time samples of programs are submitted by publishers for evaluation, approximately six months elapse before final adoption action is taken by the State Board of Education.

12. Schedule of Curriculum Frameworkand Adoption of K-8 Instructional Materials

13. 2005-06 State Budget: • $360.1 Million for Instructional Materials Funding Alignment Program (IMFRP) Local District Allocation: 2004-05 K-12 Enrollment as reported in California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS)

14. Note: Local Board may request a waiver if it finds other materials more appropriate for their schools. However, while the Local Board ultimately decides on its own schools’ textbooks and curriculum, the state’s funding tends to influence Board actions.

15. Effective Curriculafor Improving Student Achievement Seminarium

16. Effective Curriculaand Instructional Practice • Current experience and studies are converging to suggest that effective curricula and instructional practice improve student achievement when teachers are: • knowledgeable of the content • skilled in delivery of content

17. Effective Curriculaand Instructional Practice And when District Board and Administration require that its adopted curricular materials are fully implemented in accordance with: • Board policy on daily instructional minutes per grade level • Administrative regulations for requiring • district prepared pacing schedule to be used • district approved curriculum-embedded assessment aligned with adopted program, every 6-8 weeks to be used and analyzed by teachers and principal • district required school level collaborative teacher meetings by grade levels and subject areas in middle and high schools twice a month • district required professional development options offered for district credit on salary schedule • district hiring of instructional support personnel for classroom support (coaches and/or content experts)

18. Teacher Knowledge of Contentand Teaching Skill Agree or Disagree -- • Every credentialed teacher comes prepared to teach subject matter and successfully deliver instruction.

19. Finding #1: “In 1998, only 38 percent of public school teachers had majored in any academic field of study when they were undergraduates or graduate students; those with an academic major included only 22 percent of elementary teachers, 44 percent of middle school teachers; and 66 percent of high school teachers.” National Center for Statistics, Teacher Quality: A Report on the Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1999, 11-12).

20. Finding #2a: • 78% of elementary school teachers do not have an academic major, with most majoring in education • 50% of middle/high school teachers do not have a major in English yet teach English • 53% of middle/high school teachers do not have a major in Mathematics yet teach Math

21. Finding #2b: • 45% of middle/high school teachers do not have a major in Science and yet teach Science • 45% of middle/high school teachers do not have a major in History/Social Sciences and yet teach History National Center for Statistics (Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Education 2002).

22. Finding #3: “A good deal of research now shows that, among all the factors that policymakers can arguably hope to influence, teacher quality is probably the single most important determinant of how much students learn.” Terry M. Moe, A Highly Qualified Teacher in Every Classroom. In Within Our Reach: How American Can Educate Every Child, (8:173). Lanham, Maryland: The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc., 2005.

23. Finding #4: “Research shows that the cognitive abilities (as measured by objective tests) and substantive knowledge of teachers (as measured by either college majors or by tests) are determinants of student achievement.” Terry M. Moe (8:176-7)

24. Finding #5: “In California, Florida, Washington, and West Virginia, teachers are classified as highly qualified if they receive satisfactory evaluations of their classroom performance based on observations by supervisors (or submit portfolios) -- as the usual way teachers are evaluated. The criteria for these evaluations include the usual laundry list – communication skills, class climate, and the like – and do not put a premium on substantive knowledge.” Cited in Terry M. Moe (8:187) - Education Commission of the States, “ECS Report to the Nation” (Denver, Colorado, 2004).

25. Finding #6: Teachers matter most -- • Teacher effectiveness is “the single biggest factor influencing gains in achievement,” an influence bigger than race, poverty, parent’s education, or any of the other factors that are often thought to doom children to failure. W.L. Sanders and J.C. Rivers, Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on Future Student Academic Achievement, University of Tennessee, Value-Added Research and Assessment Center, 1996. Cited in The Real Value of Teachers, Kevin Carey, Thinking K-16, (8-1, Winter 2004, p. 3). www.edtrust.org

26. Finding #7: “Clearly, there is a tremendous interaction effect between longitudinal exposure to ineffective teachers and effective teachers when crossed with prior student achievement level. A sequence of ineffective teachers with a student already low achieving is educationally deadly.” Dallas Schools Study – Sitha Babu and Robert Mendro, Teacher Accountability: HLM-Based Teacher Effectiveness Indicies in the Investigation of Teacher Effects on Student Achievement in a State Assessment Program (2003) – cited in The Real Value of Teachers, Kevin Carey, Thinking K-16, (8-1, Winter 2004, p.10). www.edtrust.org

27. Conclusion: Disagree in general terms that -- Teachers are qualified to teach subject matter if holding a credential. • Overestimating the knowledge and skills of teachers may be detrimental to student achievement. Improving teacher hiring practices is essential and on-going professional development is highly recommended. When choosing professional development providers and consultants, choose them wisely – “consumer beware.” • Local Board needs to work with their Superintendent to control how funds are spent on professional development providers and consultants. Always act knowing that your teachers’ knowledge and skills matter most to your students’ achievement. If you select the wrong providers and consultants, there will be consequences and they negative impact student achievement. Districts are known by whom they hire.

28. Effective Curriculum Increases Student Achievement Agree or Disagree -- • Use of commercially published curriculum materials “de-skills” the professional work of teaching and severely limits local discretion over curriculum.

29. Finding #1: “Unlike frameworks, objectives, assessments, and other mechanisms that seek to guide curriculum, instructional materials are concrete and daily. They are the stuff of lessons and units, of what teachers and students do. That centrality affords curricular materials a uniquely intimate connection to teaching.” Deborah Loewenberg Ball and David K. Cohen. Reform by the Book: What Is – or Might Be – the Role of Curriculum Materials in Teacher Learning and Instructional Reform? Educational Researcher, (25:9, 6-8, 14, 1996).

30. There is growing evidence that standards-based curriculum materials increase teacher learning and teacher effectiveness and thereby advance achievement for all students.

31. Finding #2a: • Curriculum materials can contribute to student achievement if all teachers use them effectively and are provided with professional development and instructional resources. . . .

32. Finding #2b: “Among the most improved schools, a curriculum-based focus seems to make a difference. Consistent with much research, California’s school reform has called for school-wide adoptions of a unified, well-integrated curriculum and instructional approach. This school-wide focus means that all teachers are using the same books, have had the same training on how to use the curriculum effectively . . .(and) share a common set of expectations for student performance.” EdSource. California;s Lowest Performing Schools: Who They Are, The Challenges They Face, and How They’re Improving. (2003, 15) www.edsource.org

33. Finding #3: Instructional Program Focus Means that the District Needs to: • Prepare teacher on how to use the materials • Provide strong curricular guidance so that teachers’ understanding of the material, their beliefs about what is important, and their ideas about students and the teacher’s role all can shape their practice • Monitor full implementation to the program through the provision of a pacing schedule and frequent use of curriculum-embedded assessments California Reading First. Assurances for the Sake of Our Students: Improving Student Achievement in Reading and Language Arts! (C-TAC, 2003). www.calread.net/assurances/

34. Implementing a Coherent, Standards-based Curriculum and Instructional Program is Highly Correlated with Student Achievement Teachers who report schoolwide instructional consistency within grades – and curricular alignment from grade-to-grade – work in schools that perform better on average. Examples of practices teachers report using a to accomplish their coherency include examining the scope or sequence of curriculum topics and reviewing a grade-level pacing calendar. EdSource: Similar Students, Different Results: Why Do Some Schools Do Better? (2005) www.edsource.org Finding #4:

35. Finding #5: The four domains that contribute most to a school’s API are: • Implementing a coherent, standards-based instructional program • Ensuring availability of instructional resources • Using assessment data to improve student achievement and instruction • Prioritizing student achievement EdSource (2005)

36. Implementing a Coherent, Standards-Based Instructional Program EdSource Definition: • Amount of time spend on math and reading/language arts instruction • Proportion of teachers in a school who regularly use the same curriculum packages, and which ones they used • Extent to which teachers reported alignment and consistency in curriculum and instruction, planning and materials • Teacher, principal, and district use of state standards to guide curriculum and instruction • Use of a standards-based report card • Extent to which the district addressed the needs of English learners EdSource (2005)

37. Ensuring Availability of Instructional Resources EdSource Definition: • Skills, knowledge, and attitudes of the teaching staff at the school • School’s access to qualified support personnel, supplemental financial resources, and supplemental instructional time for students • Extent to which the district provides support for facilities and instructional materials • Amount of regular instructional time, including full-day kindergarten and extended day or year EdSource (2005)

38. Using Assessment Data to Improve Student Achievement and Instruction EdSource Definition: • CST and CAT/6 • CELDT • Curriculum program assessments • District-developed assessments • Other commercial assessments • Assessments created by individuals in a school EdSource (2005)

39. Prioritizing Student Achievement EdSource Definition: • Importance both school and district placed on setting clear, high, and measurable expectations for student achievement • Degree of priority given by teachers, the principal, and the district to meeting API and AYP targets by subgroups of students (such as by race/ethnicity and income levels) EdSource (2005)

40. Conclusion: Disagree in general terms that -- Use of commercially published curriculum materials “de-skills” the professional work of teaching and severely limits Local Board’s discretion over curriculum.

41. Recommendation: • The District’s curriculum materials selection committee should represent the most knowledgeable and effective classroom teachers of each grade level in the program under study. • Qualifications for such members could include recent training in the subject area, and if the program is reading/language arts programs, be sure to include recent recipients of the Reading Certificates and/or Reading and Language Arts Specialist Credential (since 1998). • District leaders should not assume any credentialed teacher is qualified to make a selection of an instructional program. Background checks on majors/minors in subject area should become routine.

42. The Process for Selection District curriculum leaders should lead the process for selection which includes study of each program in accordance with the state’s criteria (if K-8) or the content standards. Avoid having publisher sales people present to the selection committee. Rather, have committee members study and present the materials to committee members, with requirements to collect and analyze achievement data from districts using current edition of the materials and/or publisher achievement data studies on the impact of the program.

43. Instructional Reform • Instructional reform ideas are not a supply-side problem. • Instructional reform efforts are more a demand-side problem. Richard F. Elmore. Getting to Scale with Good Educational Practice. Harvard Educational Review. (1996)

44. Instructional Practice Agree or Disagree -- Change in classroom practice should be based on students’ motivation and in broader aspects of child development (in such matters as students’ choices of what is being taught and how to improve self-esteem) rather than on changing instructional practices based on proven research findings.

45. Finding #1: “Research seems to take a back seat. In discussing the merits of a new curricular program, little is usually said about the past relevant research on the practices in relation to the subsequent impact on students’ achievement levels. We try actions before they are tested. . . What is particularly striking about education innovations is that most were considered successes long before they were actually sufficiently tried and tests.” Jeanne S. Chall. The Academic Achievement Challenge: What Really Works in the Classroom? (2000). New York: The Guilford Press, 2-3.

46. Finding #2: • Student choice does not equate to gains in achievement. • Research finds that students do less well academically when they are given freedom to choose, select, and pace their own learning. Chall (2000) 117 [with extensive citations].

47. Finding #3a: Direct Instruction/Teacher-Centered Learning • Teacher-centered learning works well with specific types of learning and specific types of learners. Teacher-centered learning is particularly effective for those who enter school with limited knowledge, language, experience, and skills. They have not had the opportunity to learn some of the beginning skills in reading, writing, and mathematics that progressive, student-centered approaches tend to assume come naturally and that the upper and middle class child usually acquires at home. . .

48. Finding #3b: “When children fail to learn in a student-centered school environment, the explanation usually is that they lack maturity or readiness. And yet their lack is often just the failure to receive the necessary instruction.” Chall (2000) 117.

49. Finding #4: • Student-centered approaches seem to allow for lagging in achievement by citing individual differences. • The concept of individual differences is one of the most human concepts of today. Yet, it can easily become one of the most destructive. Unless it is clear to all – to Board members, administrators, teachers, students, and parents – that standards need to be met at given ages and grades for students of different abilities, and that those who do not meet these standards are to be given additional instruction, we will have a greater number of students lagging further and further behind as they proceed through school. Chall (2000), 120.

50. Finding #5: “If students who lag behind are not given the additional instruction they need to continue to make progress, they will fall further and further behind at each successive grade. If teachers accept the students’ low achievement as a manifestation of individual differences, the deceleration in achievement in later grades becomes ever greater. When such students reach high school, they usually are placed in special school with minimal achievement.” Chall (2000), 120.