A look at ELAR and Social Studies Programs in the

Richardson Independent School District

The Program Audit

Purpose of the Program Audit

• To provide district stakeholders data and feedback regarding the quality and effectiveness of the English Language Arts/Reading and Social Studies Programs.

©2007 CMSi 3

BACKGROUND/OVERVIEW of the AUDIT Alignment of the Written, Taught, Tested

• Curriculum—the work plan

• Teaching—the work

• Assessment—the work measure

Curriculum

Teaching Assessment

©2007 CMSi 4

Design/Delivery Alignment: system vs. school responsibilities

Curriculum

Assessed Taught

QC

Delivery

Delivery Design

The relationship of what is Taught to (a) the Test and (b) the Curriculum

©2007 CMSi 5

Breaking the Cycle of Socio-Economic Determinism

with Curriculum Alignment

Socio-economic Level Test Scores

Socio- Economic

Effective Schools

Curricular Alignment

Test Scores

Curriculum Management

The Program Audit

• Examines how well different departments and levels of the system are working to manage ELAR and SS curriculum design and delivery to achieve and maintain alignment—in all three dimensions.

content – context – cognitive type

©2007 CMSi 7

TIGHTLY HELD LOOSELY HELD

(System-based) (School-based)

• ENDS

• MISSION

• GOALS, STANDARDS, PRIORITIES

• STUDENT OBJECTIVES (What students are walking away with--mastery!)

• STUDENT ASSESSMENTS

• MEANS

• INSTRUCTION

• STRATEGIES

• GROUPINGS

• STAFFING

• PROCESSES

• RESOURCES/ MATERIALS

FINDINGS District STRENGTHS

• There is a clear district-level emphasis on supporting and improving instruction and serving students—All students.

• Integrity – Inspiration – Inclusiveness - Innovation

District Strengths

• The district has a high quality, comprehensive curriculum, with formative assessments, in place.

District STRENGTHS, cont.

• The district’s approach to data and its use in decision making is highly developed and institutionalized.

• There is a strong culture for using district curriculum in planning instruction and in using assessment data to modify instruction.

The Findings

• Direction

• Program Connectivity

• Feedback

©2007 CMSi 11

• Direction and Planning:

–There is a strong commitment to planning for curriculum management at all levels of the system. Current practices reflect the level of work that is ongoing to maintain curriculum quality and to support effective instruction in the classroom. ©2006 CMSi 12

Criterion One

Criterion TWO: Connectivity and Equity

• The scope of curriculum for core ELAR and SS courses is adequate (100%).

• The curriculum guides for core courses at the secondary level meet minimum requirements for quality.

Criterion TWO: Connectivity and Equity

• There are clear expectations for what classroom instruction should look like. The auditors observed flexible grouping modalities at elementary, which supports individual differentiation. The most commonly observed mode of delivery at secondary was direct instruction.

• Staff development is comprehensive and focused on goals, but written direction for its implementation is inadequate.

Criterion THREE—Feedback

• There is a comprehensive structure in place (common assessments, some diagnostic tools) for assessing student progress.

• Strong process for implementing interventions with students; interventions show high success rates

• Data are plentiful; comprehensive system of curriculum-based assessments. Data are consistently used across the district.

• Need: written direction

Recommendations

• Four recommendations.

• Our best advice for addressing the gaps and issues in findings.

• Recommendations are not a “quick fix.” There are no magic programs or tools—just hard work focused on putting structures in place aimed at improving student learning for everyone.

• Suggested timeline: 3-5 years to put in place; longer to institutionalize.

Global themes in recommendations

• Planning—in writing (institutionalize the current work)

• Refinement—excellent pieces in place; need to refine and focus

• Go beyond WHAT students are expec- ted to learn; address how and with what kind of cognitive engagement

• Tighten the cycle of responding to data for interventions

Recommendations 1. Develop a Plan for Curriculum Management

1. Philosophy, guidelines mostly present; processes, as well, already present

2. Need to re-organize to reflect, in writing, expectations for ongoing work across departments and among schools

2. Develop a plan to direct student assessment and the evaluation of support programs

3. Specify in writing the vision for interventions, their implementation, evaluation, and revision (or termination)

4. Create a written plan, in conjunction with the curriculum management plan, that directs how staff development supports effective delivery of curriculum

Next Steps

• Develop an action plan that prioritizes recommendations and lays out the essential tasks for the next 12-18 months. – Developing a curriculum management

plan

– Finalizing a staff development plan in concert with curriculum management plan

– Creating a plan to assess student progress in mastering the curriculum and for evaluating support programs within ELAR and SS.

NEXT STEPS….

• Strengthening connections between design and delivery

• Maintaining the focus on student learning and meaningful student engagement.