Foundations Series: What is Intended Curriculum?

Last month, I continued my Foundations Series on Curriculum Alignment by exploring the question "What is Curriculum?" Recall that I took issue with the idea that things like textbooks and related materials hold the exclusive right to be called "the curriculum," no matter how practical it may be to do so. I of course left this as the big cliffhanger to get you to check back in this month. ;)

Let's take a step back first, and set the stage for this discussion. This month, I am going to dig a little deeper into one aspect of curriculum, the intended curriculum. The intended curriculum is part of a multi-dimensional framework for working with curriculum developed by Andy Porter, with the other three dimensions being the enacted, assessed, and learned curricula (Porter, 2006). Visually, this is how I picture it:

In this framework, the intended curriculum is:

the content target for the enacted and assessed curriculum, statements of what every student is to know and be able to do. It is often captured in content standards or other similar documents that define specific points in time when students are to learn the knowledge and skills.

In other words, the intended curriculum is what students are supposed to learn. This may be a reasonable description of what the intended curriculum is (I'll let you decide that), but it does not address who should define the intended curriculum and how it should, or at least could, be defined.

Who and How Should the Intended Curriculum Be Determined?

This is a very sticky issue, one full of emotion for most educators. From my experience working with teachers and administrators, I'd say there is a strong feeling out there among many (I won't say most, because I don't know that) educators that the intended curriculum should be determined locally, not by politicians, test and curriculum developers, and other talking heads.

At the same time, I have also worked with many (again, I won't say most) educators that say that with all of the growing stressors and challenges of being a teacher, they would just like to be told what to teach, and be left alone as to how they should teach it. I'll get into the latter part of that statement when I blog about the enacted curriculum. For now, I'll stick to the what part of the conversation.

I'm guessing that many of you can appreciate this perspective (i.e., tell me what but not how). For me, I think it's completely understandable, and maybe even a partial explanation as to why many teachers rely so heavily on textbooks and related materials for their daily instructional decisions.

Currently, the United States continues more and more towards content being defined centrally/nationally, so to speak, not at the local level. No Child Left Behind created perhaps the most centrally-directed defining of intended curriculum at the time, requiring states to codify their own state content standards. The ante was significantly upped with the creation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in English/Language Arts and Mathematics, which was led by the National Governor's Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). And it appears that there is now movement to create similar  documents in the areas of Science and Social Studies. You can see how these standards were developed here, at least for the English/Language Arts and Mathematics.

Even if a state adopts/adopted the CCSS, there is still room there for states (as in, state departments of education/instruction) to define an "additional 15%" of content (i.e., intended curriculum) that students are to learn. I put 15% in "" because there really isn't any guidance as to how you would determine how much is 15%. Still, it's latitude for states to define intended curriculum.

Now, I'm no math major (I was a psychology major). But reading what I just wrote, it looks like the CCSS and state's additions add up to no local/district decisions about content. So now I'm really shifting from the "who" to the "how" the intended curriculum should be determined. I do believe that their is an important role for folks at the national/federal, and state levels to determine the intended curriculum. Honestly, if the work is done defensibly well (a big if for many of you I'm guessing), I'm perfectly ok with the foundation of the intended curriculum being developed at the national/federal and state levels.

Why on earth would I say such a thing  you ask? I'll tell you why...the process these groups use is usually pretty rock-solid. Some really smart, experienced educators (i.e., folks from universities, national organizations, administrators, and teachers) get together and hash out their ideas to come up with what they think is best. Their ideas get nationally vetted by virtually every stakeholder group in education. They have professional editors polish up their work. As a result, the finished product is usually pretty darn good.

Now, that's not to say that it's perfect. There are often holes in this work. It will be biased to some extent 100% of the time. It will be missing some things and have things that many think shouldn't be there. Human beings write these documents. The voices of dissension can help shape and improve this work over time. In addition, decisions made at the district, building, and teacher level can help balance out many imperfections in the national/federal/state work. This compensation, if you will, comes in many forms. Discussions in professional learning networks, materials adoption and development, and lesson planning are just a few examples of work that can be done to bring both clarity, local context, and specificity to the intended curriculum.

At the same time, hopefully the national/federal/state work can provide compensation for shortcomings in the district/school/teacher level of decision making and implementation around the intended curriculum. In my mind, their are two big areas in which having a national intended curriculum can provide a tremendous benefit for teachers and students. First, having a common instructional target can help, if followed by teachers, eliminate discrepancies in opportunity to learn for all students. Second, a national intended curriculum can provide local educators freedom to use their dwindling resources focused on other things that repeatedly trying to write standards without the experience or resources necessary to do it well.

So...where do textbooks and related materials fit into this approach to defining curriculum?

You didn't think I was going to forget to respond to my very own question, did you? :) Let me try to address this question with a hypothetical example. Consider this scenario:

A district is planning to adopt and acquire new curricular materials for K-3 reading. They want to know the alignment between the content of materials from multiple companies and the Common Core State Standards. What sort of alignment comparison would they been making?

I would say they are making an intended-to-intended curriculum alignment comparison. The Common Core defines what students are supposed to learn in this example. The materials can't be enacted or assessed yet, because they haven't been adopted or acquired. The materials can't be learned, because students are the focus on what is learned, not materials. Whatever materials the district in this scenario selects will still be intended before they are implemented by teachers and students.

Ok, there it is. I have made my declaration: textbooks and related materials are intended curriculum. You know what though? I also think textbooks and related materials can be enacted and/or assessed curricula as well. "What" you say? Didn't I just say textbooks and related materials couldn't be enacted or assessed curricula? Well, guess what? You're just going to have to check back in next month when I explain myself with my next installation in the Foundations Series: What is Enacted Curriculum?

Thanks for taking the time to read. See you here next month!

Resources Used

Porter, A. C. (2006). Curriculum assessment. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Complementary methods for research in education (3rd edition). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Foundations Series: What is Curriculum?

Welcome to my blog! If you got here from the monthly newsletter of the Midwest Instructional Leadership Council (miLc), welcome! If you found your way here from my Twitter feed, welcome! If you just stumbled here by accident, welcome! I hope you stay and check it out.

Last month, I "officially" kicked off my Foundations Series on Curriculum Alignment, although I technically started the month before by broadly defining curriculum alignment. To review:

Curriculum alignment is "the extent to which and how well all policy elements work together to guide instruction and, ultimately, facilitate and enhance student learning. (Webb, 1997)

The topic for this months' blog in the Foundations Series is exploring the question "What is Curriculum?" This is actually, in my opinion, going to be the most challenging blog post to write and discuss in the Foundations Series. Why? Because this concept/term gets tossed around and used by virtually everyone connected to education and it evokes strong emotion. Curriculum is therefore incredibly difficult to define to any degree of consensus. This EdWeek blog does a nice job of capturing these issues, in the context of the Common Core State Standards.

What is an alignment guy to do?

Are Textbooks the Curriculum?

Well, let me start off with what is likely to be viewed by at least some as at least ignorant, if not inflammatory: I think we need to stop calling textbooks and related materials the "curriculum." I am by no means anti-textbook. I understand that for many educators, their textbooks almost completely drive their instructional decisions from day-to-day. It is my opinion, however, that defining textbooks as the curriculum is incredibly narrow, preventing educators from having a comprehensive perspective on what curricular factors influence student learning. This is especially true for curriculum alignment, which requires a broader view of curriculum to really be worthwhile work for educators.

A Multi-Dimensional Approach

So, if textbooks and related materials don't hold the exclusive right to be called "curriculum" in my approach, then what is curriculum? In my curriculum alignment efforts, I've decided to start with the work of people who have been exploring this issue for much long than myself. In particular, I have found Andy Porter's multi-dimensional approach to be incredibly helpful in trying to define and understand the concept of curriculum. 

Perhaps the best resource I've found for defining and exploring curriculum by Porter is a chapter he wrote in the Handbook of Complementary Methods in Education Research called Curriculum Assessment, which you can download here from Porter's website (he has many other great resources there as well, I highly recommend checking it out). In this chapter, which is based on his larger body of work, he breaks curriculum down into four parts: (a) intended, (b) enacted, (c) assessed, and (d) learned. To quote:

"Curriculum can be divided into the intended, enacted, assessed, and learned curricula. For K-12 education, the intended curriculum is captured most explicitly in...content standards - statements of what every student must know and be able to do by some specified point in time. The enacted curriculum refers to instruction (e.g., what happens in classrooms). The assessed curriculum refers to student achievement tests. States, districts, and the U.S. government test various subjects at various grade levels. Teachers use their own tests to monitor student performance." (Porter, 2006) 

For me, this description of curriculum turns into the following picture:

This figure is likely familiar to most, at least in terms of its structure. Many have used a triangle to paint a picture of curriculum, though different terms are put at the corners of the triangle in different frameworks. I am of the opinion that this version of the triangle, when properly used, can incorporate any and all facets of any other approach to understanding curriculum, and then some. It is remarkably comprehensive yet simple, flexible yet consistent.

So...What is Curriculum?

Each of these terms will be explored in more depth in future blogs in the Foundations Series for Curriculum Alignment. For this blog, I use the following phrase when answering the question posed in the title of this blog, "What is Curriculum?":

Curriculum is what students are supposed to learn, what they get the opportunity to learn, what gets assessed, and what is actually learned.

Where do textbooks and related materials fit within this approach? My answer to this question, as it is to many questions, is...it depends. :) You'll have to check in to my Foundation Series blog next month, when I address the question "What is Intended Curriculum?" Or, hit me up on Twitter and ask. Thanks for reading my blog!

Resources Used

Porter, A. C. (2006). Curriculum assessment. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Complementary methods for research in education (3rd edition). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Webb, N. L. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education (Research Monograph No. 8). Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Introduction to Curriculum Alignment Foundations Series

Welcome back blog readers. As I've started on this new professional journey with the Midwest Instructional Leadership Council (aka, miLc), blogging has thankfully been something I can attend to more frequently. At least, for now it is. In the past, my blogging has typically been about something that has come across my radar that I felt compelled to comment on. For those that enjoyed reading about those mini-"inspirations" I plan to continue doing that here in this blog.

But I have also had many ideas lodged away deep in my brain to blog about when it comes to curriculum alignment, but lacked the vision and time to do the work. Well, as I said, that has changed. So, let me unveil the first of these ideas...

I just started a new line of blogs called the "Foundations Series." More descriptively, I plan to regularly blog about foundational curriculum alignment topics and issues. These blogs will occur once a month, and will coincide with the dissemination of the miLc monthly newsletter. You can subscribe to our newsletter by clicking here and fill out the form. Of course, you'll be able to read these blog posts just by coming here directly. But our newsletter will have plenty of other goodies in it, so you should check that out anyway :).

I actually posted my first blog in the Foundations Series last month when we sent out our first newsletter. You can read that blog post here. The Foundations Series will consist of the following topics, in order:

1. What is Curriculum Alignment?
2. What is Curriculum?
3. What is Intended Curriculum?
4. What is Enacted Curriculum?
5. What is Assessed Curriculum?
6. What is Learned Curriculum?
7. What is Alignment?
8. What is Directionality?
9. What is Dimensions?
a. What is Topical/Conceptual Knowledge?
b. What is Cognitive Complexity/Demand?
c. What is Emphasis?
10. What is Level of Analysis?
11. Pulling the Curriculum and Alignment Models Back Together

So, for you math fanatics out there, this adds up to about a year's worth of blog posts, once per month. I'll also have my topical posts and a series of other series I plan to launch soon as well. So you'll have plenty of alignment blogging goodness to enjoy. I'll also always tweet a link to my latest blog, so you might want to follow me on Twitter as well.

That's all for now. Stop back often!

Foundations Series: What is Curriculum Alignment?

The alignment of intended, enacted, and assessed curriculum, is an under-examined and misunderstood aspect of the educational process and often taken for granted. Despite this relative lack of attention, the term alignment can often be seen in the documents we read and the conversations we have with our colleagues. Alignment is a term that means different things to different people. So, how do we define curriculum alignment, and why does it matter?

In this blog posting, I'll begin to address the first of these two questions: what is curriculum alignment? If you'd like to read a "dictionary" definition, check this out. It's pretty good, actually. A bit wordy though. I like definitions that we have a shot at conjuring up ourselves if asked. I'm a fan of Norman Webb's definition. It goes something like this:

Curriculum alignment is "the extent to which and how well all policy elements work together to guide instruction and, ultimately, facilitate and enhance student learning."

That definition is a little less wordy, but could mean just about anything, right? I'm afraid that to really get at the heart of alignment, we're going to need to break this down a little more. And that, my blogosphere friends, will take some time. Lucky for me, this gives me plenty of things to blog about for awhile. For now, let me leave you with three thoughts:

1. Process vs Event. Curriculum Alignment, done well, is a process, not an event. Furthermore, the focus needs to be on student learning. If you can't draw a one or two step connection between the "alignment" work you are doing and how it will directly impact students, it may not be the best use of your time.

2. Defining Curriculum is Complex.

The term curriculum alone conjures up a wide range of responses and emotions. In a future blog, I'll dig into some different definitions, including the one I use in my work. For now, here's a picture of the framework I use to define and understand curriculum.

3. Defining Alignment is Complex. As I alluded to at the beginning of this blog posting, defining alignment is not an easy task. One blog entry can't do it justice. So, like I just did for the term curriculum, I present here for your viewing pleasure a picture of the framework I use to define and understand alignment.

Check back soon to see how I dig into curriculum alignment some more.

Resources Used

Porter, A. C. (2006). Curriculum assessment. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Complementary methods for research in education (3rd edition). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Porter, A C (2002) Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice Educational Researcher, 31, 3-14.

Webb, N. L. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education (Research Monograph No. 8). Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

My International Alignment Meeting

I had the distinct privilege of attending an international meeting for the Surveys of Enacted Curriculum (SEC) on June 27th and 28th, 2011. It was at Loyola University in Chicago. They were excellent hosts, and the facilities were outstanding. The conference was "international" because there was a gentleman there from Qatar. Qatar! I couldn't believe it. I had no idea how widespread SEC use really was. Apparently pretty widespread. I was very honored that John Smithson, one of the original creators of the SEC, invited me to attend.

Let me back up. The SEC is a set of processes and tools that can be used to examine the alignment between the intended, enacted, assessed, and learned curriculum. In other words, it can be used to explore the connections between what is supposed to be taught, what is actually taught, what is assessed, and what is learned. In my opinion, the SEC is the gold standard in measuring curriculum alignment. I highly recommend checking it out. Here are two links where you can learn some more about the SEC here and here.

Here are a few of the points I took with me from this meeting:

1. Socially desirable response problems to the teacher survey don't really seem to be a major issue. In other words, it seems that most teachers respond honestly. This is important, otherwise the information would be worthless.
2. SEC data should not be used to evaluate teachers. Furthermore, if the experience is going to be useful, teacher trust is a must.
3. There could be a future for the SEC using teacher-developed assessments instead of just large-scale, standardized assessments for alignment work.
4. The SEC still performs well, but there is a desire to collect more reliability and validity data for these tools.
5. Student engagement becomes increasingly clear as a critical variable to explore when looking at alignment.
6. The Common Core State Standards for English/Language Arts and Mathematics has been coded using the SEC language framework, and is now in their database. That means for anyone wishing to do alignment work with the Common Core, it is sitting there for comparison in the SEC database. Teachers just have to complete their survey, and then comparisons can be made.

I learned a lot more, but it's pretty nerdy, and I'd hate to bore you :). Rest assured, I got my alignment nerd on in a major way. I left the two-day meeting feeling very excited about the future of alignment in our country. There are some great minds doing great work. I believe it is our imperative then to both benefit from and contribute to this cause.

New Beginnings

Well, if you've made it to this blog posting, you know that I no longer work for Heartland AEA 11. Or, at least, you just figured that out because I just wrote it right there. Either way, here I am, separated from Heartland for the first time in eight years. It's sort of crazy to realize that for me even now, over two weeks into my vacation.

If you want to read my letter to Heartland's HR department explaining my decision not to sign a contract for the 2011-12 school year, click here. There's nothing very juicy in it. But it's my official statement on the matter. I will say this on the matter here in this blog, and just leave it that way: I am deeply committed to the work I do to help teachers and administrators make sense of data, and how to use those data to make the educational experience better for all students. I do this mostly with curriculum alignment data, though I do a fair amount with response to intervention (RtI) as well. That means I will always pursue employment opportunities that will allow me to pursue my passions.

So, what are my work plans now? I have joined a non-profit that I helped start a few years ago called the Midwest Instructional Leadership Council (miLc). Counting me, we have 2.5 employees, an Executive Director, and an amazing Board of Directors. I love working with each and every person associated with miLc. And I am stoked to be working for miLc. I feel refreshed and excited to continue pursuing my passions with this amazing group of world-changers.

We don't sell promises or products that will solve every problem. No silver bullets. Instead, we will work shoulder-to-shoulder with whomever wants to partner with us to bring evidence-based practices to the classroom. We do this with passion, determination, and enthusiasm. We work with teachers, schools, districts, education agencies, and anyone else that thinks we can help.

I sincerely hope that I can continue working with Iowans (and beyond) to achieve these goals. But even if I don't work directly with you, know that it is my sincere hope that all is going well for you personally and professionally. Take care and I hope to see you down the road.

State of the Union 2010

Ok folks, I've decided to do a running narrative of President Obama's State of the Union address tonight. I'm only going to do this for issues related to education though, as I would hate to wade into other waters on an education blog.

In my opinion, the President has done a pretty good job of not running down the middle, but rather endorsing/supporting projects and philosophies of both the Democrats and Republicans. This is so interesting to me, because unlike the rest of their supposed platforms, Republicans have been pushing for more Federal centralization of education, and Democrats tend to fight for less government intervention in education. It'll be very interesting to see what happens. After my thoughts on the Presidents commentary on education, I'll provide some final thoughts. Enjoy!

Ok, to start, I had to pause my TV (I love DVR!) for a few minutes, so my times are going to be a little off. Just an FYI.

8:33 - The President cites the stimulus act as having a saved a teacher's job. Well, it's saved a lot of jobs in education, to be sure. He says jobs are the #1 priority for 2010. How will this impact education, which stands to lose a lot of jobs in a couple of years? Hopefully he fills us in.

8:41 - The President quickly cites how other countries are putting more emphasis on math and science, which helps them become more competitive. A complex issue, but it's hard to argue that other countries provide more central direction for education, including an emphasis on math and science.

8:49 - The President cites Race to the Top. He called it a bipartisan effort. I agree. He says we need to stop funding failure and status quo. I agree. "The best anti-poverty program is a first-class education." I agree. He says that ESEA reauthorization is a priority. Thank goodness, this needs to happen ASAP. The President talks about loan forgiveness for students that go on to college. Amen, amen, amen. Loans are breaking people's backs. Man, there is a lot in this little segment. I'm surprised he didn't hit more on Race to the Top and/or ESEA reauthorization. I'll reflect on this more at the end.

9:34 - Well, the speech is over. As I thought, President Obama didn't get into education issues too much. Although it's disappointing, it's understandable in my opinion. There is so much going on right now. The President hit on a wide range of topics. He touted Race to the Top, albeit briefly. He hit the point about ESEA reauthorization, which is kind of a must in my opinion.

I'm guessing that this speech won't go down as historic in the world of education. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it's good to fly under the radar. I imagine that much that is happening now in the world of education will continue to move forward as is. That's a little scary, but could end up ok. I think it means that we need to ride the wave of the movements with Race to the Top and make the best of it.