Building a Common Core–Based Curriculum by Solution Tree

Common Core–Based CURRICULUM “Susan has developed a process that will help you clearly define your system’s instructional input while also creating an evidence-based context in which to analyze student achievement data. With the straightforward applied research, this process will align practice with expectations and support continuous improvement in your school!” —Paula J. I. Landers, Director of Instruction, Evansville Community School District

“Too often the products of curriculum writing sit on shelves. Susan’s strategies engage teachers and their school leaders. The result is a dynamic, useful guide for instruction, as well as a rich source for practice-oriented dialogue between teacher and principal.” —Kim Perkins, Retired Superintendent, Bloomingdale School District 13

“Susan clarifies, validates, and sequences the mapping process in a simple, straightforward manner that provides guidance to the beginning mappers and reassurance to the experienced mappers. I cannot begin to specify all the ways I am growing as a teacher through the mapping experience, and I know you will too with this book in hand!” —Bonnie Schoen, First-Grade Teacher, Merryman Elementary

Building a Common Core–Based Curriculum: Mapping With Focus and Fidelity by Susan Udelhofen is a roadmap for creating a comprehensive curriculum centered on the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Readers will explore various stages of curriculum development, from building academic support to using data from CCSS-based curriculum maps to tracking achievement. During the curriculum-building process, schools will learn to better share

BUILDING A COMMON CORE –BASED CURRICULUM

Building a

Common Core–Based CURRICULUM Mapping WithFocu s and

FIDELIT Y

information and will engage in significant, collaborative conversations about the curriculum, resulting in both a strengthened community and improved student success. Using this engaging resource, you will: • Create a curriculum founded on the CCSS • Foster a collaborative environment in which teachers can share their teaching and learning expectations • Introduce an ongoing curriculum-mapping process that welcomes continuous conversation and revision • Access dozens of tools and examples to support curriculum mapping Visit go.solution-tree.com/commoncore to download the reproducibles in this book.

solution-tree.com

SUSAN UDELHOFEN

• Reach a common definition of curriculum

SUSAN UDEL HOF EN

Copyright © 2014 by Solution Tree Press Materials appearing here are copyrighted. With one exception, all rights are reserved. Readers may reproduce only those pages marked “Reproducible.” Otherwise, no part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without prior written permission of the publisher. 555 North Morton Street Bloomington, IN 47404 800.733.6786 (toll free) / 812.336.7700 FAX: 812.336.7790 email: info@solution-tree.com solution-tree.com Visit go.solution-tree.com/commoncore to download reproducibles and access live links from this book. 18 17 16 15 14

12345

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Udelhofen, Susan. Building a common core-based curriculum: mapping with focus and fidelity / Susan Udelhofen. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-936764-68-6 (perfect bound) 1. Curriculum planning--United States--Standards. 2. Curriculum evaluation--United States. I. Title. LB2806.15.U345 2014 375’.001--dc23 2014003940 Solution Tree Jeffrey C. Jones, CEO Edmund M. Ackerman, President Solution Tree Press President: Douglas M. Rife Editorial Director: Lesley Bolton Managing Production Editor: Caroline Weiss Production Editor: Rachel Rosolina Copy Editor: Stephanie Koutek Proofreader: Elisabeth Abrams Text and Cover Designer: Rian Anderson

Table of Contents Visit go.solution-tree.com/commoncore to download reproducibles and access live links from this book.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Product and the Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 The Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Setting the Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Understanding and Translating the Common Core State Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Creating CCSS-Based Curriculum Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Using the Curriculum-Mapping Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 The Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 How to Use This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Chapter 1 Setting the Stage for Curriculum Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Active Administrative Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 District Leadership Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Data Management Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Focused Conversations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Effective Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Assessment of Learning and Assessment for Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 The Assessment Progression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 CCSS Assessment on the State Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Chapter 2 Understanding the Common Core State Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 The Development of the CCSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 The Organization of the CCSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 ELA Organization and Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Mathematics Organization and Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

BUILDING A COMMONâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;CORE BASED CURRICULUM

Cross-Grade-Level CCSS Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Chapter 3 Translating the Common Core State Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Unpacking and Analyzing Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Prioritizing Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Reviewing Across Grade Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Sharing Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Chapter 4 Creating Scope and Sequence Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Benefits of Scope and Sequence Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 CCSS Content-Area Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Scope and Sequence Map Development Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Role of Leadership Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Chapter 5 Creating Individual Teacher Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Benefits of Individual Teacher Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Analyzing Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Supporting One Another . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Documenting Authentic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Guiding Daily Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Organizing Information for Convenience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Individual Teacher Map Development Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Step 1: Create a Process Timetable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Step 2: Develop a Template With Specific Map Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Step 3: Schedule Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Step 4: Build the Individual Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Step 5: Implement Other Mapping Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Step 6: Engage in Map and Talk Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Chapter 6 Using the Curriculum-Mapping Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Common Formative Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Table of Contents Professional Learning Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Response to Intervention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Framework for Teaching Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Next Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Appendix A Curriculum-Management Software Selection Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Training Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Data Input and Ease of Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Data Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Stability of Company and Data Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Appendix B Assessment Tools and Templates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Informal Assessment Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Formal Assessment Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Assessment Management Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Assessment Data by Specific Student . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Assessment Management Tools for Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Appendix C Individual Teacher Map Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Administrator Map Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 First-Grade Mathematics Individual Teacher Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Integrated Fourth- and Fifth-Grade ELA Individual Teacher Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Fifth-Grade Mathematics Individual Teacher Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Eighth-Grade ELA Individual Teacher Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 High School Mathematics Individual Teacher Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 References and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

vii

About the Author Susan Udelhofen, PhD, has provided professional development and consultation services to educators from small, large, rural, and urban school districts, education agencies, and universities and colleges throughout the United States. Her work with preK through grade 16 educators and administrators primarily focuses on issues and practices related to analyzing the Common Core State Standards and building a focused, CCSS-based curriculum. Emphasizing the curriculum-mapping process, integrating sound assessment practices, and making meaningful connections to current school improvement efforts are integral to her curriculum building work. Her expertise and engaging presentation style encourage educators to collaborate with one another, reflect on their teaching practice, and most importantly, focus on the improvement of student and teacher learning. Udelhofen began her career as an elementary education teacher. She then worked at the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction as a Goals 2000 consultant, gifted and talented consultant, and program evaluator. She has taught courses in teacher mentoring, assessment, reading methods, children’s literature, and gifted and talented education and has supervised preservice teachers at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Udelhofen served as advisor to PBS TeacherLine and various other education agencies in the areas of curriculum mapping and assessment. Her publications include the best-selling books Keys to Curriculum Mapping: Strategies and Tools to Make It Work, The Mentoring Year: A Step-by-Step Program for Professional Development, and Keys to Curriculum Mapping Media Kit, which earned the 2008 District Administration magazine Readers’ Choice Top 100 Products award. Udelhofen earned a doctorate in curriculum and instruction and a master of science in educational psychology, both from the University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Introduction Teachers want to know what they are required to teach, but at the same time, they want the flexibility to teach in ways that reflect their strengths, their preferences, and the specific needs of their students. Principals and school administrators, on the other hand, want a documented, authentic curriculum that represents what every student in the district will be expected to learn and what teachers will teach. Teachers and school administrators alike want a curriculum that is structured, flexible, authentic, easily accessible, and well used. This book offers a Common Core State Standards–based curriculum-building model that stresses both the flexibility teachers desire and the structure the district requires. While this book focuses on the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), the curriculum-building process can easily be transferred to any set of standards. To begin, we need a common definition for curriculum.

The Product and the Process One has only to ask a few teachers, principals, or curriculum leaders to realize that most educators attempting to deliver the “curriculum” are not functioning under an agreed-on definition. Some teachers refer to their cumbersome, multivolume textbooks—containing more information than is humanly possible to cover within the school schedule—as the curriculum. Others refer to the district curriculum guides found in large binders, which are often used inconsistently. Still others describe the curriculum as the content they teach based on personal preference and a variety of resources. Some believe the curriculum is composed of their multiple, and often inconsistent, interpretations of the standards. Together, these responses suggest a misguided assumption that a curriculum is a relatively neutral, technical document of sorts designed to accomplish certain agreed-on ends. In reality, this is generally not the case (Kliebard, 1989). To better understand and consequently define curriculum, it is helpful to look at the Latin root, currere, a verb meaning “to run the course.” However, generations of educators have been schooled to believe that curriculum is not an action but a tangible object that includes lesson plans, units of study, or course pacing guides. This view suggests that rather than curriculum being the process of running a course, it has become the course itself (Slattery, 1995). John D. McNeil (1996) further illuminates this dichotomy: There are two worlds of curriculum. One is the rhetorical world in which members of commissions, boards of education, heads of government, and others give their answers to what should be taught and how. Curricular reform, policy statements, goals, frameworks, mandates, and other features of school restructuring are associated with this world. The

BUILDING A COMMON–CORE BASED CURRICULUM

other world is the experiential world in which the teacher and students enact curriculum and pursue their goals, constructing knowledge and meanings in the process. (p. iv)

Combining both curriculum worlds—blending the product and the process—resonates with the purposes of this book. Thus, the following definition underpins both the product (the Common Core State Standards) and the process (curriculum mapping): Curriculum is the agreed-on framework of concepts and skills that is taught with clear purpose, informed flexibility, and continuous collaborative analysis.

This definition guides the curriculum development and implementation work found in this book.

The Framework The Common Core State Standards have provided a unique opportunity to bring focus, consistency, and shared understanding to teaching and student learning expectations. But as past experiences suggest, it will not be enough to merely adopt these standards at face value with the assumption that they are understood and will be competently taught and assessed. Simply adopting new standards will not create an environment of collaborative understanding, promote new learning, or raise student achievement. Rather, such efforts require a well-designed curriculum-building framework (see figure I.1). Note that each chapter is devoted to a segment of this process. Phase 1

Setting the Stage for Curriculum Building

Phase 2

Understanding the Common Core State Standards Translating the Common Core State Standards

Phase 3

Creating Scope and Sequence Maps Creating Individual Teacher Maps

Phase 4

Using the Curriculum-Mapping Data

FIGURE I.1: Curriculum-building framework.

This framework begins with setting the stage for successful implementation. Next, schools work to understand the CCSS by analyzing, translating, and prioritizing the standards. Schools then create two types of curriculum maps based on the standards analysis: (1) a collaboratively created overarching scope and sequence map for the school or district and (2) individual teacher maps reflective of each teacher’s classroom teaching. The scope and sequence map has input from many and provides pacing and focus for what is to be taught and assessed within specific time periods (usually based on grading periods). The individual maps become each teacher’s individual workspace for how the scope and sequence map information is actually implemented in his or her classroom in much shorter timeframes—usually one

Introduction

to two weeks. These are the maps that provide valuable, personal, classroom-based data. Finally, schools put these new curriculum maps to use and collect data to inform instruction.

Setting the Stage The curriculum work begins with an orientation to three practices that underpin successful implementation: (1) active administrative involvement, (2) focused conversations about curriculum, and (3) effective assessment of student learning. Chapter 1 covers these topics as well as the use of data management software. Great strides have occurred via the support of curriculum-mapping software tools to assist documentation, analysis, and revision. Positive outcomes include ease in documenting and sharing curriculum-mapping information, generating valuable reports, and implementing more efficient methods for standards alignment.

Understanding and Translating the Common Core State Standards Once the preliminary work is completed, the actual standards-based process begins with teacher groups collaboratively analyzing the Common Core State Standards, as detailed in chapter 2. This analysis means digging deeper into the standards instead of merely accepting them at face value. As discussed in chapter 3, this stage of the process also asks teachers and administrators to look at the big picture of the CCSS in conjunction with specific skills expectations in order to prioritize the standards. It requires teachers to pull the CCSS apart and put them back together in ways that can more realistically guide classroom teaching and assessment practices. In essence, the analyzed, unpacked, and prioritized CCSS concepts and skills become a bank of learning expectations from which to build a curriculum.

Creating CCSS-Based Curriculum Maps Creating standards-based curriculum maps is a simultaneously structured and flexible process. First, teachers must translate the prioritized Common Core State Standards into focused and paced curriculum maps, also known as scope and sequence maps, which are discussed in chapter 4. These maps provide a consistent, broadly paced CCSS-based teaching guide for the school or district. The next step is individual mapping. Here, teachers take the curriculum from the scope and sequence map and create a personalized map based on their specific classroom teaching, as covered in chapter 5. This step is the most time consuming, at least initially, but reaps the biggest reward. Creating individual teacher maps provides a workspace for teachers to figure out teaching and assessment practices and illustrates who each is as an educator. The individual teacher maps also present evidence to support or challenge teaching practices that goes beyond reliance on anecdotal remarks or personal interpretation. By using individual teacher maps as data, teachers participate in meaningful, focused discussions (called mapping and talking) that allow for sharing ideas, solving problems, and challenging the status quo. Creating individual teacher maps and participating in these collaborative discussion sessions have great potential to make good teachers better and help struggling teachers improve.

Using the Curriculum-Mapping Data As detailed in chapter 6, this curriculum-mapping process culminates when the CCSS-based scope and sequence maps together with individual teacher maps provide a living, breathing illustration of the districtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s curriculum. The scope and sequence maps provide districtwide focus and pacing, while the more

BUILDING A COMMON–CORE BASED CURRICULUM

detailed individual teacher maps illustrate the reality of actual implementation. Both types of maps present a rich data source for nearly every school improvement goal. Meaningful curriculum work is dynamic, ongoing, and continually revised. The mindset that curriculum work is a task to be completed, shelved, or stored is no longer the accepted attitude. In fact, curriculum work is now shifting from a stand-alone task to be completed “for the district” and then forgotten until the next curriculum cycle to an ongoing process to help us all improve learning experiences for students. Teachers are better when they work together to share teaching and learning expectations with focus and mutual respect. An integral—and probably the most significant—component of the CCSS-based curriculum-mapping process is the meaningful, collaborative dialogue that occurs among teachers as they discuss, analyze, and debate classroom practice. As the curriculum process evolves, trust is established among teachers and administrators with the common goal of doing the best possible job of providing instruction and facilitating student learning. This relationship makes it safe to put the authentic curriculum out there for all to see, critique, learn from, and celebrate. Time and time again I have witnessed the tremendous growth that occurs for all participants as the tone of conversations shifts from hesitation and resistance to openness, confidence, and the desire to be better teachers. I’ve observed countless teachers taking on leadership roles and making a case for mapping to their peers when it wasn’t easy or popular. There have been visible aha moments when a teacher’s thinking about classroom practice has been illuminated. I’ve watched attitudes evolve from skepticism about “another bandwagon” to the positivity of “This will make me a better teacher and my students better learners.” No longer do I hear “Who is this for?” as it becomes very apparent that this work is for all of us.

The Research The most significant body of research that guides this work is that of John Hattie (2009) and his metaanalysis of student achievement. His findings provide insight into the power of clearly stated learning goals that emphasize specific skills and deep learning accompanied by well-articulated success criteria to increase student achievement. Doug Reeves (1998, 2010) also describes the importance of analyzing and prioritizing the standards, focusing on the most vital content and skills, and then assessing skills both formatively and summatively. This idea is further supported in the work of Larry Ainsworth (2003), who discusses the importance of analyzing and making standards more manageable through his unwrapping process. Robert Marzano (2003) describes a guaranteed and viable curriculum as having a high impact on student achievement. He defines guaranteed as consistent and commonly understood learning expectations and viability as the realistic time allotment necessary to adequately teach and assess what is required. In addition, focused content and skills, especially in the area of English language arts (ELA), are emphasized in Mike Schmoker’s (2011) book Focus, in which he advocates a common curriculum, high-quality lessons, and sound literacy as the foundation for raising student achievement. He describes the need to simply, clearly, precisely, and persistently communicate what we want from our schools. Heidi Hayes Jacobs’s (1997, 2004) seminal and inspiring work created the foundation for my own curriculum-mapping research and work of the past fifteen years. Supported by this research and my many years of experience working with teachers and administrators as they build curriculum, I believe in this process.

Introduction

How to Use This Book This book serves as a step-by-step resource for curriculum directors and district administrators to guide a CCSS-based curriculum-building process. The specific curriculum-building directions and samples also provide educators with the needed tools for unpacking and prioritizing the CCSS and the construction of standards-based curriculum maps. The curriculum-building model encourages ongoing analysis and modification as new and better ways of curriculum delivery are determined, so the curriculum map is always a work in progress. Teachers will learn to use reality-based curriculum data to continually inform and support school improvement initiatives. Each chapter begins with a list of key topics and offers specific directions for the applicable curriculumbuilding step. In addition to the samples and protocols in each chapter, appendix A (page 71) offers criteria to help with the selection of curriculum-management software, appendix B (page 73) supplies various assessment tools and templates, and appendix C (page 85) includes sample administrator and individual teacher maps for reference. Depending on the prior experiences of your staff, you may find that skimming the first three chapters and focusing on the sections most relevant to your staff will be beneficial. For example, if your staff have had multiple professional development opportunities on assessment or are well versed in the CCSS, then a quick read on those specific sections will provide the needed foundational work. Chapters 4 and 5, however, which cover creating the maps themselves, are the heart of this work and need to be thoughtfully read and understood before delving into the mapping process. Similarly, the final chapter should also be read closely to learn how to best use mapping data for continued growth and learning.

To begin the curriculum-building process we needed to first create a broader “systems” viewpoint as to what foundational pieces were necessary for a sound, effective, mutually understood curriculum. I knew that by taking the time at the beginning to develop common goals and learning expectations, we would have a stronger curriculum, better teacher understanding, and ultimately higher student achievement. —K–12 Director of Instruction

o build a curriculum that is meaningful, commonly understood, used, and sustained over time, three specific structures and practices need to be in place: (1) administrators need to be actively involved with the curriculum-building process, (2) teachers and administrators must have opportunities to engage in focused conversations about their work, and (3) everyone should have the knowledge and skills to effectively assess students to maximize learning. This chapter describes these three practices and offers strategies and tools for implementation that can be referred to throughout the curriculum-building process and beyond.

Key Topics

Setting the Stage for Curriculum Building

•• The role and responsibilities of administrators in the curriculumbuilding process •• The rationale for having meaningful, focused conversations about teaching and learning, called map and talk sessions •• An overview of assessment definitions and practices to guide the curriculum-building process

Active Administrative Involvement Curriculum building is a joint venture that requires school administrators and classroom teachers to work together toward a common goal. It should not be a task that rests on the shoulders of the curriculum director or a few teacher leaders. This is especially important to remember as schools transition into a Common Core State Standards–based school system. As Judy Jenkins and 7

BUILDING A COMMON–CORE BASED CURRICULUM

R. Scott Pfeifer (2012) describe, “Principals don’t need to be curriculum experts, but they do need to lead their school with full knowledge of the CCSS, the new assessments tied to those standards, and the rigor embedded in both” (p. 31). Actively engaged principals understand that if they are to recognize and describe good teaching, they need to be directly involved in helping teachers design the curriculum, address assessment and instructional issues, and continually monitor the effectiveness of these practices (Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005).

Following are specific ways that principals can use CCSS-based curriculum maps to inform and improve their capacity to become instructional leaders: • Use individual teacher mapping data to inform classroom walkthroughs. • Reference the mapping data to support and inform formal classroom observations. • Routinely access and refer to maps via electronic tablets, laptops, and smartphones at home, as well as in grade-level, department, and staff meetings, or wherever they are discussing and planning curriculum. • Share the most current curriculum data with new families (or prospective new families). • Provide evidence of teaching and assessing specific Common Core concepts and skills when student or parent questions arise. • Use the individual teacher mapping data to inform and support state assessment item analysis data. • Use the mapping data to provide evidence of how, when, and where school improvement goals are being implemented. • Provide new staff with curriculum information that includes a scope and sequence map and individual teaching maps for specific courses. • Present the school board with the most current Common Core curriculum data. • Use the report functions of curriculum-mapping software to generate evidence-based curriculum reports. • Create teaching and assessing consistency across multiple buildings. • Use the scope and sequence map along with individual teaching maps for principal collaboration across buildings. In fact, in many districts, curriculum leaders and principals create individual maps that illustrate their roles and responsibilities. These maps are very similar to the format of individual teacher maps and are electronically developed and stored. An example of an administrator map is included in appendix C (page 85). Leadership capacity is further grounded with the development of district leadership teams.

Successful schools have principals who are present and who actively participate in every step of the curriculum-building process. They understand how the process strengthens knowledge and expertise in their building and that their involvement in and knowledge of curriculum, assessment, and instruction are considered critical to their role as instructional leaders. This is an area of great need, and as Michael Fullan, Peter Hill, and Carmel Crévola (2006) indicate, “principals, district leaders, and system leaders are in a weak position to take responsibility for the quality of instruction because they have so little real information on what is taught, let alone how well” (p. 90). Curriculum maps close that gap.

Setting the Stage for Curriculum Building

District Leadership Teams To achieve sustained success, this curriculum process needs to be approached as a shared responsibility among district curriculum leaders, principals, and teacher leaders alike. Successful leadership is created when leaders are deeply embedded in the process and knowledgeable of the dispositions, skills, and motivation necessary to bring about positive change (Fullan, 2005). Establishing district- and building-level leadership teams composed of educators actively involved in each curriculum-building step will serve to guide and monitor the process.

A strong district leadership team should include the following members: • District curriculum director • Principals • Teacher leaders that include representatives of the following— • Elementary, middle, and high schools • All subject areas, including related arts • Representatives from each building • New and veteran teachers who represent all levels of experience The district leadership team has several responsibilities. First, each member should be a leader in the CCSS-based curriculum-building process. Second, he or she should plan, facilitate, and present the district-level CCSS-based curriculum work to all teachers for their review and feedback (this is especially important for larger school districts). These sharing sessions offer every teacher the opportunity to analyze the foundational CCSS curriculum work of their colleagues, ask questions, and offer feedback for modification and revision. Finally, once the curriculum foundation is built and educators learn to use the curriculum data to inform and support school improvement goals, it is important to establish a process that facilitates ongoing curriculum implementation, modification, and communication patterns within and across buildings. See figure 1.1 (page 10) for a sample curriculum communication chart. The leadership team members can serve to establish this ongoing curriculum communication structure.

Data Management Software A specific role of the administrator and administrative team is to find software that will help manage and analyze the curriculum data. In an age when a wide variety of curriculum management software tools are available, it is difficult to justify managing curricula with the same type of pencil-and-paper lesson plan books that have been used for decades. Technology affords teachers tools with which to document, share, and analyze their own curriculum information as well as that of their colleagues. It enables easy district-, building-, and classroom-level analyses of CCSS alignment and assessment. Once it is learned and used, it is a significant time-saving and information-building tool.

During the curriculum-building process, teacher leaders along with the principal build the CCSSbased curriculum and become the curriculum experts. Their curriculum work is routinely shared with all teachers at the building level for review, feedback, and suggestions for possible revisions. Once the curriculum foundation is created and the curriculum maps are in good working order, this group oversees and guides ongoing curriculum implementation. All educators learn to use the curriculum and the maps in a multitude of ways that inform and support school improvement goals.

BUILDING A COMMON–CORE BASED CURRICULUM

K–5 Building Site-Based Curriculum Team Representatives from all areas: grade levels, related arts, media, special education, speech and language, and so on Meets at or around each grading period K–5 Building Site-Based Curriculum Team

Meets at or around each grading period K–5 Building Site-Based Curriculum Team Representatives from all areas: grade levels, related arts, media, special education, speech and language, and so on Meets at or around each grading period K–5 Building Site-Based Curriculum Team

Districtwide Elementary Curriculum Team Representation from all elementary building Meets three times per year determined by the council member

Representatives from all areas: grade levels, related arts, media, special education, speech and language, and so on Meets at or around each grading period K–5 Building Site-Based Curriculum Team

Meets at or around each grading period

Representatives from all areas: grade levels, related arts, media, special education, speech and language, and so on Meets at or around each grading period Middle School Curriculum Team Representatives from all areas: grade levels, related arts, media, special education, speech and language, and so on

Representation from elementary curriculum council, middle school curriculum council, and high school curriculum council Meets three times per year, usually following the elementary, middle, and high school council meetings

Representatives from all areas: grade levels, related arts, media, special education, speech and language, and so on

Middle School Curriculum Team

District Curriculum Team

Districtwide Middle School Curriculum Team Representation from both middle school building Meets three times per year determined by council member

Meets at or around each grading period

High School Curriculum Team Representatives from all areas: grade levels, related arts, media, special education, speech and language, and so on Meets at or around each grading period

FIGURE 1.1: Curriculum communication chart. Source: Adapted from Udelhofen, 2005. Used with permission.

Representatives from all areas: grade levels, related arts, media, special education, speech and language, and so on

Setting the Stage for Curriculum Building

Most companies will offer trial licenses for small groups of teachers, and I strongly suggest taking advantage of this option. Because classroom teachers will be the primary users of the curriculum software, it is imperative that they have the opportunity to learn about the various curriculum software options and to be included in the selection process. A list of suggested criteria is included in appendix A (page 71). While documentation is important, discussing what is being documented is equally imperative.

Focused Conversations

Map and talk sessions, guided by protocol questions, are implemented at various points during this curriculum work and are noted throughout the book. Figure 1.2 (page 12) is an example of a map and talk session planning template. The learning outcomes from these focused conversations are tremendous. Collaborative discussions create learning environments where teachers develop a solid understanding of the learning expectations, not only at their grade level or course, but across grade levels and courses as well. To enhance teacher learning, John Hattie (2009) suggests that school leaders and teachers create school, staffroom, and classroom environments where teachers can talk about their teaching, where errors or difficulties are seen as critical learning opportunities, and where they feel safe questioning, learning, relearning, and exploring their own teaching knowledge and understanding. Map and talk sessions provide such opportunities. This collaborative practice widens the education perspective from looking at teaching only through the individual teacher lens to also seeing that of a larger system in which all teachers are part of an organization of educators who teach all students and learn from one another.

Effective Assessment The term assessment is derived from the Latin word assidere, which means “to sit beside” or “to sit with.” This root meaning summons an image of what effective assessment should look like: a teacher sitting next to a student to discuss his or her work, reviewing progress of drafts, and suggesting next steps. Sound assessment practices result in understanding what is happening as a student is learning, not merely at the end of teaching. Yet when teachers are asked what comes to mind when they hear the word assessment, very frequently their immediate response is test. There seems to be a common belief that the most important and meaningful assessments are those that result in a mark, grade, or score at the end of teaching. Considering the typical teacher education program, this is not too surprising. Except for those focused on special education, most teacher education programs do not require courses that emphasize sound assessment understanding and practice. There are few courses that immerse teachers in understanding the difference between formative and summative assessment strategies, analyzing various types of assessment methods,

Focused and productive conversations are a fundamental piece of the curriculum-building process. As teachers analyze and unpack the CCSS, create a scope and sequence map, build their individual maps, and learn to use these data in productive ways, continual focused mapping conversations—called map and talk sessions—must take place. These sessions occur between and among grade levels, departments, and buildings, providing a forum for teachers and administrators to discuss the important work of teaching and student learning. Through regular map and talk sessions, teachers, principals, and curriculum leaders discover how well the curriculum plans and intentions work via the challenges and successes experienced in the reality of classroom teaching.

BUILDING A COMMON–CORE BASED CURRICULUM

Define the purpose for this map and talk. (What is the focus of the map and talk session? These could include: examining the curriculum maps for assessment strategies, level of instructional rigor and assessment alignment, response to intervention accommodations, common assessment skill identification, and so on.)

(Based on the purpose for this map and talk, what questions would guide the discussion and analysis?)

Decide who should meet. (Include teacher name, grade level, and department.)

Complete the following chart during and after the map and talk session. Teacher name:                                                                              Grade level / subject area:                                                                              Date of this map and talk:                                         Allocated time for this map and talk:

What Needs to Happen Next

Deadline for Completion or Date of Next Session

FIGURE 1.2: Map and talk session planning template. Visit go.solution-tree.com/commoncore to download this figure.

Responsible Persons

Create questions and a template.

Setting the Stage for Curriculum Building

knowing the purposes of specific types of assessment, matching appropriate assessment methods with desired skill outcomes, using assessment data to inform instruction, involving students in the assessment process, or managing assessment data effectively. Assessment knowledge and expertise serve as the bridge between teaching and learning and are integral components of a strong curriculum (Tomlinson, 2008; Wiliam, 2011). Assessment practices should be deliberately designed to improve teaching and encourage student learning, not merely to audit it (Wiggins, 1998). For this to occur, teachers need to have a better understanding of how assessment is defined.

Assessment of Learning and Assessment for Learning There are two types of assessment: summative (of learning) and formative (for learning) (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2004). Summative assessments measure what a student knows at a particular point in time and occur at the end of instruction. This assessment of learning often compares students and usually indicates success or failure. State tests, quarterly or semester exams, and assessments used for report cards are typical types of summative assessments. Formative assessments, on the other hand, are planned processes that occur while teaching and learning are happening. The results of assessment for learning provide detailed, specific, and descriptive feedback—more often in words than numbers, scores, or grades. Essentially, formative assessments provide day-to-day diagnostic information, which allows time for teachers to adjust instruction to optimize student learning (Wiliam, 2011). As Jackie Loiacono (2012) aptly describes, it’s the difference between a checkup and an autopsy. While an autopsy provides good information as to what happened, it’s too late for the patient. A checkup, on the other hand, can provide information that helps the patient make lifestyle changes to improve health, avoid serious health issues, and hopefully live a longer life. The same can be said for assessing during the learning process and making the necessary changes rather than using a one-shot assessment at the end of teaching when there isn’t time to adjust instruction. Another goal of using formative assessments is making a focused effort to actively involve students in the assessment process. Student-involved strategies are often referred to by the phrase “assessment as learning” (Stiggins et al., 2004). Assessing as learning offers opportunities for students to track and compare their results to their previous best, to ask reflective questions, and to modify the ways they learn in order to help them progress toward meeting the learning targets (Earl, 2003; Stiggins et al., 2004; Wiliam, 2011). The intent is for students to become active participants in the assessment planning and result analysis process. Knowledge and expertise in building and implementing summative and formative assessment strategies are necessary to build effective, informative, and balanced assessment systems (Burke, 2010; Holcomb, 2012; Stiggins et al., 2004). This information will help teachers expand their definition of assessment and provide the tools to better serve their students. Based on Rick Stiggins’s work, table 1.1 (page 14) summarizes assessment of learning, for learning, and as learning. Note that it is important to collect a variety of assessment data in order to use triangulation to determine mastery.

This book is not designed to provide an in-depth course in assessment literacy, but it presents key research-based information and strategies to increase and strengthen teacher understanding of assessment and thus strengthen the curriculum-building process. When building an effective curriculum, understanding and implementing sound assessment practices are necessary parts of the process.

BUILDING A COMMON–CORE BASED CURRICULUM

TABLE 1.1: Types of Assessment

Approach

Purpose

Assessment of learning

To make judgments about placement

(summative)

To present information in easily digestible numbers, scores, and grades

Reference Points

Key Assessor

Other students

Teacher

Common Core State Standards

Teacher

Personal goals and external standards

Student

To provide a formal report

To judge success or failure

Assessment for learning

To provide data to use in conversation about teaching and learning (map and talk sessions or conferences with student)

(formative)

To provide detailed, specific, and descriptive feedback in words (instead of numbers, scores, and grades)

Student

To check learning to decide what to do next—to ask if instruction was effective To compare with the student’s previous best and progress toward a standard To involve the student—the person most able to improve learning To provide collaborative opportunities—teachers and students working together

Assessment as learning

To self-monitor and self-correct work or performance

(formative)

To make personal connections

To adjust approach as learning progresses

Source: Stiggins et al., 2004.

The Assessment Progression During the curriculum-building process, as teachers strive to create a balanced assessment system that includes both formative and summative strategies, it is helpful to view assessment on a planning continuum. This continuum, shown in figure 1.3, illustrates how the various types of assessments work together. The teacher first administers a preassessment that is both summative and formative, follows this with a wide variety of formative strategies throughout teaching, and then ends with a culminating summative assessment. While the assessment continuum represents how the types of assessments work together, the cycle of assessment (figure 1.4) guides assessment development and use. Each component of the assessment cycle is deeply embedded within the CCSS-based curriculum-building process. Clarify Learning Targets

The first step in competently assessing students is to clearly identify the skills to be learned. Beginning with clear statements of intended learning is of the utmost importance to teachers not only as they plan and

To compare the student’s learning with other students’ learning or the standard for a grade level

Setting the Stage for Curriculum Building

Common formative assessments (for learning) Assess studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; progress on specific benchmarks at particular times during the learning process but still allow time to modify instruction

Assess where students are at the beginning of the unit, quarter, semester, and so on

Summative assessment (of learning)

Formative assessments (for and as learning) Assess where students are throughout the learning continuum These assessments vary in length and method and are administered frequently with ample feedback. Students are active participants in the assessment process.

Assess where students are at the end of the unit, quarter, semester, and so on

FIGURE 1.3: The assessment system continuum.

Clarify Learning Targets

Implement Instructions and Modifications Based on Results

Gather Assessment Evidence

Analyze Assessment Results

FIGURE 1.4: The assessment cycle.

Preassessment (of learning)

BUILDING A COMMONâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;CORE BASED CURRICULUM

deliver instruction but also as they select the most appropriate method of assessing those learning targets. Establishing and communicating clear learning targets reap huge benefits for both teachers and students. Students have a much better chance of achieving the target if they know and understand what it is. The learning targets established by the Common Core State Standards, along with the initial curriculumbuilding work of analyzing and prioritizing the CCSS, provide this type of learning target clarity. Thanks to this work, teachers are better able to articulate what students should understand, know, and be able to do and, in turn, more competently design assessment methods that match the intended outcomes. This portion of the assessment cycle will be further discussed in chapters 2 and 3.

The next part of the assessment cycle includes gathering evidence to determine if students have achieved the intended CCSS learning target. The types of assessment evidence gathered and documented in the curriculum maps should reflect forethought and planning. Teachers must choose assessments for which the intent of the skill matches the appropriate assessment method. This involves keeping close track of how each student is working toward mastering the intended target, where each is on the learning continuum, and how to better meet the needs of those students who are not meeting the learning target. The assessment information holds valuable data for map and talk sessions, student conferences, and parent-teacher conferences. Teachers have a tendency to control or manage all of the assessment data, whereas students should ideally be active partners in the teaching, assessing, and learning process. In appendix B (page 73), there are a number of templates and tools available to assist teachers and students alike in managing, monitoring, and discussing assessment results. It is also worthwhile to explore Checking for Understanding by Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey (2007), Balanced Assessment (2010) by Kay Burke, and Making Classroom Assessment Work by Anne Davies (2011). Analyze Assessment Results

The assessment results are then viewed and discussed as part of the curriculum-mapping process. Map and talk sessions about classroom assessment practices can fundamentally transform the way a teacher teaches (Popham, 2008). As teachers gather to share strategies for assessing the CCSS, discuss results, and plan teaching modifications, everyone learns and grows. Curriculum map and talk sessions, guided by data, provide valuable insight into making informed modifications to teaching and assessing practices both at the systems level and individual classroom level, the last step in the assessment cycle. Implement Instructions and Modifications Based on Results

Teachers are now able to determine and implement the instructional changes to be made to their classroom practice based on analyzing and discussing assessment results. Depending on the specific assessment results, the teaching modifications can be reflected in the scope and sequence maps, individual teacher maps, or both. For example, if the assessment results suggest a reprioritizing or repacing of specific skills, those types of modifications would be reflected in the scope and sequence map. If the specific assessment results warranted more emphasis on math application skills, that information would probably be reflected in individual teacher maps. The point is that the mapping process provides the forum for discussing the results, and the maps provide the place for recording the changes and reflections regarding the actual implementation of the changes. The maps reflect curricular thought and analysis. As a result

Gather Assessment Evidence

Setting the Stage for Curriculum Building

of the process and product orientation of this curricular work, teaching practice and student learning are continually improved.

CCSS Assessment on the State Level

According to the PARCC and SBAC websites, beginning in the 2014â&#x20AC;&#x201C;2015 school year, the member states will implement these newly developed summative assessments in grades 3â&#x20AC;&#x201C;8 and high school in the areas of ELA and mathematics (PARCC, 2014; SBAC, 2012). The information shared by the consortia will be important to consider as teachers continue to implement and assess the Common Core concepts and skills at the district and classroom levels. To keep apprised of the progress of both consortia and view sample assessment items as they are made available, visit their respective websites: http://parcconline.org and www.smarterbalanced.org (visit go.solution-tree.com/commoncore to access all live links in this book).

Next Steps Building a meaningful, mutually understood curriculum is challenging work that requires a strong foundation from the start. This chapter presented structures and practices that help establish such a foundation to more confidently begin the curriculum-building process. Once you have those structures in place, the next step is to clearly identify the standards or learning targets that are at the center of the curriculum. The CCSS provide this starting point and are described in the next chapter.

In September 2010, the U.S. Department of Education awarded funding to the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) to develop comprehensive and technology-based assessment systems aligned with the Common Core. Forty-five states and the District of Columbia joined one or both of the consortia as ongoing volunteer members. According to a preliminary report published by the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing in January 2013, both consortia are developing summative assessments that will represent deeper learning goals, particularly those related to mastering and being able to apply core academic content and cognitive strategies related to complex thinking, communication, and problem solving (Herman & Linn, 2013). There is some evidence that formative assessments will be offered as well, but at the time of this writing, the greatest emphasis appears to be on summative assessments.

BUILDING A COMMON CORE –BASED CURRICULUM

Building a

Common Core–Based CURRICULUM Mapping WithFocu s and

FIDELIT Y

solution-tree.com

SUSAN UDELHOFEN

• Reach a common definition of curriculum

SUSAN UDEL HOF EN