Curriculum Revision That Works
One of the most interesting points during the study was a by-product analysis.
When asked about changes or alteration of instruction, there was no significant statistical difference.
Based on respondents’ reactions, there was no significant statistical difference in changes or alteration of direct classroom instruction upon completion of the curriculum revision process. A large majority of the respondents indicated that the teaching methods used at the conclusion of the revision projects did not significantly alter, if at all, the processes and information related through classroom instruction.
Conclusions/Recommendations of the Study
On the basis of this investigation, the review of literature, and the conclusions developed from prescribed data of the study, the following recommendations were made.
1. Practicing educators, both administrators and classroom instructors, must be directly involved in successful curriculum revision processes.
Not only must the “team” approach be fully implemented in the initial revision process, the two elements must be consistently sustained.
First, administrators must maintain an on-going involvement in the revision process. Second, teachers must have strong support, consistent feedback, and continual opportunity for professional discussion.
2. The time frame for training and revision procedures should be of short duration.
The “one-shot” approach does not work. The single day, or even two or three day training sessions are not effective. The results of this study indicated that combined with number one above, the revision process, training, conversations, and review, must be long-term and periodic. Teachers indicated that “identify, revise, experience, and review” would be a much more effective method of actually revising the “taught” curriculum than the method commonly used of revising and moving on. While this (typical) method might have “aligned” the curriculum with the new assessment, it did not create an effective change in classroom instruction or teaching strategies.
3. The review process must be consistent throughout an extended period of revision.
This is addressed above. Teachers stated, both statistically and anecdotally, that without consistent, frequent, periodic review of the changing curriculum, the process is little more than an exercise in futility.
The practitioners strongly suggested that a willingness to adapt their instruction would occur as soon as the curriculum revision became significant enough to merit continuous discussion and implementation, i.e. evaluation, student involvement, teacher involvement, parental involvement, and administrative support.
4. Participants in the revision process should have access to continuous assistance, opportunity for frequent discussion, and periodic review throughout the entire process. This will increase the essential “buy-in” noted so often as vital for effective curriculum reform.
As discussed previously. Teachers consistently emphasized professional discussion, consistent opportunities to review the changes, and evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed changes.
5. In-district expertise must be combined with out-of-district authorities to better accommodate demands and the expectations of the curricular revision procedures.
The often used term “buy-in” cannot be over-emphasized in this study. The results indicated that while information from experts who study curriculum revision extensively is well-received, there must be an internal review process and support system to fully effect the process. Returning to the now familiar refrain, the out-of-district opportunities cannot replace the in-district consistency of review needed to fully implement an effective process.
In both, districts which felt they had attained successful curriculum revision, as well as in districts which felt they had not been successful, similar indicators emerged. First, specific knowledge related to the revision process must be provided. Second, the review process must be in-house, frequent, and supportive.
6. Better understanding of the curriculum, curricular revision, and curriculum needs are being developed. Further need exists, however, as indicated by the lack of change in classroom instruction.
As we accept the changing needs of our schools, we accept the changing needs of the curriculum. To effectively implement these changes, however, we must begin to learn more about the process of systemic change, how to implement it effectively, and how to incorporate the ideal of teacher leadership throughout the curriculum revision process.
To effect long-lasting change in classroom instruction, a substantive change must first occur in the curriculum.
The building leader must collaborate even more effectively with his/her staff and constituencies. No one individual can be responsible for the entire curriculum revision process; it is truly a ‘team-approach’
Summary
The area of curriculum is one of controversy, concern, and conflict. Without doubt, however, educational curriculum is one of society’s foundational components. As stated in the recommendations, while improvement is undoubtedly occurring in the taught curriculum via the mandated curriculum revision processes, there seems to be some doubt as to the long-lasting, substantive change in educational programming. Thousands of dollars are obligated throughout school districts across the nation for the purpose of revising curricula, and yet too often, the response from communities, teachers, and students suggests that the actual classroom instruction is not adapting to the needs of a new century. If there is no substantive change in content with direct classroom instruction, what is the purpose of revising the curriculum? Change in society is occurring. The responsibility to address the needs created by this change lies at the door of educational leaders, classroom teachers, administrators, and community leaders. The results of this study clearly indicate that attention to some relatively easily managed details could offer significant improvement in the successful implementation of effective curriculum revision efforts. It is incumbent upon school leaders to develop a process that will achieve effective curriculum revision.