Running head: CURRICULUM PLANNING HISTORY

Curriculum Planning History Victoria Webb Grand Canyon University Curriculum Development for School Improvement - EDA 561 November 08, 2011

CURRICULUM PLANNING HISTORY Curriculum Planning History The curriculum is definitely the backbone of any schools academic world and can be taught through a variety of resources to students. Choosing the appropriate curriculum is a

difficult challenge for administrators today and making sure it is implemented effectively within each classroom. According to Danielson, a curriculum gives teachers the expectations what students are learning and also provides the resources available to align the curriculum to encourage student learning (Danielson, 2002). In the State of Texas, the curriculum is periodically updated through The State Board of Education; the states curriculum standards are called the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). Textbooks, resources and other additional materials are then written for children based on those standards (http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index.aspx?id=2147495412&menu_id=720&menu_id2=785&cid=21 47483654). In 1872 the Kalamazoo case in Kalamazoo, Michigan was the beginning for public education to collect taxes to support public education curriculum. The Michigan Supreme Court decided in 1874 that the state had the right to levy taxes for the support of public education ("Court Case," n.d.). This court case set the precedent for other states to follow to ask the taxes be levied to support public education. A pioneer of curriculum started in the twentieth century with Franklin Bobbitt in his book titled Curriculum in 1918; in this period different views on education were being expressed and best practices were being debated. Bobbitts curriculum was a way to prepare students for their adult lives; he felt that curriculum should be adapted to what an individual needs and people should not be taught what is useless. The tasks learned would be those that would be necessary to fulfill their own personal tasks. John Dewey also added to the debate of bridging the curriculum between the older more traditional definitions of

CURRICULUM PLANNING HISTORY education to the more modern ideas as education was progressing. The US Department of Education and how technology has integrated more are other keys affecting the curriculum. Curriculum has changed due to the No Child Left Behind Initiative passed in 2001, this

has most definitely been one of the most current events that has altered education. This initiative increased the accountability in all schools across America by focusing on the detail on the curriculum provided to students. The No Child Left Behind Act has required all states to set higher expectations and access student achievement through each states standards. The NCLB has not only affected the way teachers have to teach, but teachers are filling stressed and leaving the profession. Teachers are experiencing challenges trying to teach low-income urban and rural districts without the resources available and not receiving the financial support. Poorer districts suffer not meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) because limited resources; where in turn the richer districts that receive the largest tax levies have the better resources and the best technology. Generally, the love of teaching is being removed from the classroom and administrators are under pressure to show AYP or at least to maintain their high scores. In the State of Texas students are allowed to take two weeks off if they have shown proficient scores and these two weeks allows teachers to prepare other students for the tests (Gentry, 2006). In my current district we have a large number of English Language Learners one of the elementary campuses has over half of their student population as English Language Learners (ELL). It has been very difficult for this campus to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) due to students being limited in English. Teachers have had to rethink how teaching is conducted in the classroom. The Sheltered Instruction Observation Protocol (SIOP) model has been clearly woven into the each grade-level curriculum to assist teachers to implement modification to daily instruction in English. When SIOP lessons are used activities can initiate purposeful

CURRICULUM PLANNING HISTORY communication within students and create those oral and language practices. We can equip all ELL students with all the strategies necessary to be successful in a classroom and pass a test; however, will the information be purposeful for the students future. Following any type of

educational model can have its advantages and disadvantages as for the SIOP model it can allow for other students to be bored and students may not be on task. It requires a lot of preparation on the teachers part. It requires excellent classroom management skills, the ability to multitask, and significant amounts of preparation time (Irujo, 2006, para. 6). Teachers are overwhelmed with larger class size and fewer paraprofessionals to assist; with the mandated curriculum and the standardized testing teachers have less freedom to teach in ways that they think would benefit each student. Even if teachers did not intend to teach ELLs, teachers are aware that we have a responsibility to all the students in their classrooms, whether those students know English or not. No Child Left Behind has affected all aspects of education including the gifted education area. With approximately 3 million gifted students in the United States; and less money is being distributed for the gifted education program (Beisser, 2008). Gifted education programs are being left aside and children are not being served. Teachers across America are being distributed all over other services where higher needs to help assist and meet Adequate Yearly Progress as mandated by No Child Left Behind. Districts are taking their gifted teachers to help those students that contribute to the low standardized testing scores. Lack of planning time, professional development and classroom space to provide services to these gifted students have been limited due to opening classes for those struggling students. Gifted students academic performance and standardized scores are declining; their curriculum is watered down and not giving these students the challenged that they need to perform at a much higher level. Since teaching all students is different since the implementation of No Child Left Behind school

CURRICULUM PLANNING HISTORY districts need to find way to improve classroom instruction to better serve all children. School districts can provide better training for regular classroom teachers to understand the needs and characteristics of gifted students; universities and teacher preparation programs need to prepare teachers to understand the need to know how to teach high-level curriculum to high-achieving students. Since the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, education policy makers have focused on students at the lower end of the achievement spectrum, those that are struggling to meet standards, particularly in reading and mathematics. However, those who are gifted have been increasingly passed over at their own expense (Beisser, 2008, p. 11). In this age of high accountability within each school district and vast growing world of

technology, education must make changes of this new way of life and education. Education does not need to be passive, but reflect what we are as a society that we live in today. Curriculum today should prepare students to achieve their individual goals and prepare them to become productive members in society. Curriculum should not only have isolated facts, but develop understanding, knowledge and skills; engage students through all their senses.

CURRICULUM PLANNING HISTORY

References Beisser, S. R. (2008). Unintended Consequences of No Child Left Behind Mandates on Gifted Students. Retrieved from http://forumonpublicpolicy.com/summer08papers/archivesummer08/beisser.pdf Danielson, C. (2002). Enhancing Student Achievement: A Framework for School Improvement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Gentry, M. (2006). No Child Left Behind: Neglecing Excellence [supplemental material]. Education Research Complete, 29(1), 24 - 27. doi: http://web.ebscohost.com.library.gcu.edu:2048/ehost/detail?sid=fc1b65b7-dad8-469cafda5756e2492f66%40sessionmgr115&vid=1&hid=126&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2 ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=ehh&AN=22985383 Irujo, S. (2006). Flexible Grouping: Nobody Ever Said Teaching Was Easy! Retrieved from http://www.coursecrafters.com/ELL-Outlook/2006/mar_apr/ELLOutlookITIArticle3.htm The Kalamazoo Case. (n.d.). Retrieved November 6, 2011, from http://www.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/kalamazo.html