Comic by Scott Adams
It stands to reason that the simplest explanation for some unknown phenomena is probably the best explanation. This concept, known as Occam’s Razor, has been used to eschew excesses from theories, and was even used as an explanation for the existence of God. This reliance on simplicity however, can sometimes be lost on the true application of the idea:
“Occam's razor is often wrongly applied. The key is the the phrase "praeter necessitatem" in the Latin formula. Not all complications are forbidden. On the contrary, complications necessary to cover the facts are not only allowed but required. However simple or even beautiful a theory may be, if it does not cover the facts, it is not viable. A complex theory may be a sign that the thing it is trying to explain is not yet deeply understood. But it may also be the correct explanation of a genuinely complex phenomenon” (The Principle of Simplicity).
While it is tempting to view the planning of curriculum as a simple, step-by-step process, it is important to not lose focus on the fact that proper curriculum planning is an incredibly important, and incredibly complicated task. The design and implementation of curriculum is a highly difficult and nuanced process that requires an understanding of student learning styles, proper implementation and review, and an evaluation system that tracks efficacy. While the introduction of the Common Core State Standards may seem to be a panacea in the process, thorough work must still be done at both the educational and administrative levels for it to be implemented properly.
The topic of learning styles, and the many different approaches that have been taken over the years, have given educators a wealth (perhaps and overabundance) of psychological and philosophical approaches to instruction. This makes the planning stages of the curriculum especially difficult when we take a standards-based approach.The educators and supervisors involved in the decision making process must take into account the idea that not all students learn in the same manner, and therefore, the curriculum must reflect both this understanding, as well as guide the construction of frameworks that provide this necessary differentiation. There is a general consensus in education that “Learning theorists and researchers have not arrived at a universally accepted, precise definition of learning” (Parkay, et al., 189). This is a potentially disturbing admission for those that consider themselves educators. What must be understood by curriculum planners, before anything else, is that the curriculum will be implemented upon students of vastly different backgrounds, shema, and learning styles. “A program should strive for the optimal match between learner capacity and level of experiences provided. Some children have greater facility with abstract thought, critical reasoning and meta–cognitive skills than others (Braggett et al., 1999). This means that to avoid underachievement a curriculum needs to be developed that will both challenge and stimulate students appropriately” (Differentiating the Curriculum). To not take this into account, is to guarantee the weakening of any curriculum that is produced.
The supervisors in charge of the curriculum design process must be sure not to simplify or overly downplay the significance of each curricular decision, as it is there job to ensure proper implementation of the curriculum after it has been accepted. Failure to act in the developmental design stages of the curriculum will almost certainly result in a flawed and therefore ineffective document. The Common Core Standards are able to fill an important gap in the implementation and design of the curriculum. As most school districts use a “Backwards Design” model of curricular planning, the standards become the jumping off point. The more clear and precise these standards are, the more likely the prescribed curriculum becomes the enacted curriculum. Too often, this process is short-changed. “Jumping from the standards to create lesson plans misses a crucial middle step of developing a coherent curriculum. The absence of this more complex work of creating a local curricular framework for the district, which informs the sequence and breadth of instruction (usually referred to as “scope and sequence”), will result in weak implementation of Common Core” (Honig). Using the CCSS correctly, and determining them as the basis for subsequent discussion of scope and sequence at each grade level subject simplifies the process of planning, and makes the implementation more clear for those tasked with using it on a daily basis.
In order to determine the success of the curriculum, supervisors need to be vigilant in collecting data that concerns the efficacy of the program. Is it being properly implemented? Are their benchmark assessments? Are PLC’s functioning in making the curriculum stronger? Do teachers understand that the curriculum is a document that by all means evolves over the course of its existence? The state of New Jersey released a Powerpoint to principals and supervisors during a recent professional development. In addition to the many pages of common sense approaches to CCSS and curriculum evaluation, they recommended a prioritized list of goals for every school district in terms of curricular evaluation:
“On the three highest priorities:
1. Ensure that a coherent curriculum with standards selected by a team of teachers is actually taught and tested with common assessments.”
Clearly, the State takes great interest in the supervision of instruction as it relates to curricular alignment, as well as the use of Common Assessments to achieve this end. Teachers will do themselves a great service by routinely discussing in their Professional Learning Communities the type of instruction they are using, and the data that backs its efficacy. So to must administrators be present in these meetings as a way to guarantee that this work is being done, and has become an accepted practice in their building.
While the Common Core provides us with a useful and unifying framework at the start of the curriculum planning process, it must not be seen as the curriculum itself. That work must be undertaken by group of educators, administrators, and community members tasked with its success. Only by starting off with and understanding of student learning styles, developing and implementing the curriculum through shared outcomes and common assessments, and ensuring the implementation is occurring through proper supervision, will the curriculum designed by these stakeholders do what it has been tasked with, namely, increasing the education of the students it serves.
References
"Differentiating the Curriculum." Differentiating the curriculum. NSW Department of Education and Communities, n.d. Web. 12 June 2014. <http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/policies/gats/programs/differentiate/>
"Shifting Gears! Using the CCSS, PARCC and Educator Evaluation to Drive Student Achievement." . State of New Jersey, n.d. Web. 12 June 2014. <http://www.state.nj.us/education/sca/ppt/gears/MSUPricipal.pdf>.
"Understanding History | The Principle of Simplicity." Understanding History | The Principle of Simplicity. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 June 2014. <http://www.umass.edu/wsp/history/outline/simplicity.html>.
Honig, Bill. "Coherent and sequenced curriculum key to implementing Common Core standards." EdSource Today. EdSource, 29 Jan. 2014. Web. 12 June 2014. <http://edsource.org/2014/coherent-and-sequenced-curriculum-key-to-implementing-common-core-standards/56704#.U5kFXZSwIjA>.
Parkay, Forrest W.. Curriculum Leadership: Readings for Developing Quality Educational Programs. 9th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2010. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment