Survey of Enacted Curriculum
An Essential Tool for School
Improvement
CCSSO SEC State Collaborative Meeting
San Diego, CA
February 2008
Constance J Dorr, Ph.D.
cd@fostoriaschools.org
Fostoria City Schools
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1928
7.9%
8.9%
18.2%
64.5%
61.5%
3.8%
14.4%
0.6%
ADM
African American
Hispanic
Multiracial
White
Econ Disadvantaged
LEP
SWD
Migrant
Fostoria City Schools
• Enrollment Trends
– Regional
– District
• Budgetary Impacts
– Buildings
– Staffing patterns
Accountability
•
•
•
•
•
Academic Content Standards
Achievement/Graduation Tests
AYP for All Student Groups
Highly Qualified Teachers
Principals as Instructional
Leaders
Curriculum
Instruction
Assessment
Curriculum
– Ohio’s Academic Content Standards,
Benchmarks, Grade Level Indicators
– Teacher Teams
– Content Experts
– Existing Curriculum
Fostoria Performance
Indictors
– Grade level indicators and
benchmarks ‘wrapped’ together into
meaningful student performances
– What students should know and be
able to do
– Developed by district K-12 vertical
and horizontal teacher teams with
consultation from content experts
Instruction
– Written
• Curriculum Maps/Course
Organizers
• Unit Plans
• Lesson Plans
– Observed
• Collaborative Observation
• Walk-Through
• Evaluations
– Discussed
• Grade level collaboration
• Departmental collaboration
Assessment
Student Achievement Data
1. Ohio Diagnostic Results (K-3)
2. Ohio Achievement Test Results (Grades 3-8)
3. OGT Results (Grade 10)
4. OAT/OGT Item Analysis
5. AYP Accountability Workbook
4. Terra Nova Results—Value Added Data
5. Other Diagnostic Assessments (e.g., DIBELS,
Rigby, Fountas and Pinnell, Waterford, AR)
6. Classroom Assessments (PI Mastery)
District Rating Increases
– Continuous Improvement

– Academic Watch

– Academic Emergency
Survey of
Enacted Curriculum
Ohio Department of Education
• Regional Assessment Update Meeting
• Fall 2005
• Announcement regarding SEC
– Examine alignment of curriculum and
instruction
– No cost to districts
SEC
• Role of District Curriculum Director
• A tool to ‘test’ alignment between
our intended, enacted and
assessed core curriculum
• SEC 101
• SEC 201 & 301—Principal
• Administrative team training
• Faculty training
Time for Teachers
• Release time provided for teachers
(‘floating’ subs)
• Teachers worked together in small
groups, using curriculum maps, lesson
plans, textbooks, and discussion
• Completion of the survey by at least 3
teachers
• Confidentiality was emphasized
Use of SEC Data
• ELA, math and science SEC
aggregated data was examined and
discussed as a part of grade and
department meetings prior to the
opening of school in August 2006
• The examination of the data
highlighted the importance of
instruction—content and cognitive
demand levels
• Teachers worked together to identify
content that was ‘taught and tested’,
‘tested but not taught’ and ‘taught but
not tested’
Teacher Responses
• Initially survey seems lengthy
• Terminology may be confusing
• Perceived value of SEC tool
increases during subsequent
years
• Relevance for school
improvement initiatives
SEC Data
• Stimulated important dialogue among faculty
and administrators regarding instructional topics,
use of instructional time and cognitive demand
levels required of students
• Alignment with OAT and OGT results
• Alignment between topics ‘covered’ at cognitive
demand levels with content and cognitive
demand levels of statewide test items (item
analysis)
Adequate Yearly
Progress
• Sufficient numbers of students earn scores
in the Advanced and Accelerated ranges
yielding a Performance Index = CI Rating
• Not all student groups meet AYP targets
• District moves into Improvement status
Comprehensive District
Data Analysis
• Corrective Action—2006-2007
– AYP targets not met by student groups
• SEC becomes vital part of comprehensive
district data analysis process
– Student OAT and OGT results
– SEC instructional data
– Perceptual data—underlying beliefs and values
Data Walls
CCIP Development
• Comprehensive Continuous
Improvement Plan—District and
School Improvement Plans
• Goals (4)
• Strategies (3)
• Action Steps
Goal 1—Increase Reading
Strategy: Increase the depth of
reading content knowledge and
skills and the cognitive demand
levels in the teaching and
learning of reading and core
content, which is aligned with
Achievement and Graduation
Test content and cognitive
demand levels
Goal 1—Increase Reading
Strategy: All district personnel are
accountable and take responsibility for
achievement of all students, including
district leadership and teachers through a
district accountability system, which is
aligned vertically and horizontally—all
teachers are Highly Qualified (HQT)
Action Step: Teachers and administrators
examine and apply district, school, and
student LRC, accountability workbook,
common assessment, value-added, and
survey of enacted curriculum data to inform
instruction.
Next Steps for SEC
• SEC was completed again in spring 2007
• Teachers were able to compare two years
of own data confidentially
• Social studies teachers were able to
participate in pilot survey during the
summer of 2007
SEC
– More dialogue regarding
terminology
– Confidentiality very important
– ‘But I covered that’
– How and where should I place
instructional emphasis?
– What should I expect from my
students?
– Have I moved closer ‘to the mark’
this year?
SEC Resources
– PD provided by Carolyn Karatzas
– Administrative Team and
Curriculum Leaders
– ½ day department meetings
– ½ day grade level meetings
– Identification of ‘big bucket’
content/cognitive demand areas
– Assessment data patterns
– Item analysis
– Ohio SUCCESS Website
Application of SEC
– Teachers used SEC benchmark,
indicator and assessment tile
charts to identify most important
content and cognitive demand
levels
– Highlighted important content
within PIs to clarify where
emphasis should be placed and
examined benchmarks to
determine if appropriately
aligned to cognitive demand
levels
– PI modifications
SEC
A powerful tool that
helps us to focus on
what is most
important—teaching
and learning relevant
content at appropriate
cognitive demand
levels.