PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE
CHANGE:
Curriculum Revision That
Works
Judy A. Johnson, Ed.D.
Assistant Professor
Educational Leadership and
Counseling
Sam Houston State University
P.O. Box 2119, Office
Huntsville, Texas 77341-2119
Phone: 936-294-1935
E-mail: edu_jaj@shsu.edu
Abstract - As school districts across the nation address societal demands and legislative mandates to prepare a workforce for the 2lst century, school leaders find themselves working to change curriculum within their schools. To achieve this challenging, sometimes controversial task of curriculum alignment and revision, school leaders must work with diverse constituencies to achieve the best balance of needs, desires, appropriate assessment, and instruction. Achieving effective curriculum revision, therefore, requires a thorough understanding of the processes and principles of the changing paradigms affecting curriculum development.
PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE
CHANGE:
Curriculum Revision That Works
School districts across the nation
have begun revising instructional programs in an effort to meet society’s
demands for a 2lst century workforce.
Determining what these needs are, how to address them, and how to revise
established curriculum often rests in the laps of many building level
administrators. Often these building
principals find themselves at the center of a controversy they did not want, do
not deserve, and cannot fix. Yet, they
are charged with full responsibility for the often mandated “curriculum
revision” process. Many times these
same educational leaders have not had adequate preparation for, nor do they
have a full understanding of, what is expected, with regard to the curriculum
revision project. This demand for
change to meet the needs of a 2lst century educational program is challenging
even the best educational leaders.
This study and the subsequent
recommendations had their origin in the frustration of two building administrators
who were given the responsibility of “designing a curriculum revision project
which would upgrade the established instructional program and improve classroom
instruction” (the quote of their superintendent assigning the task). In other words, the ‘taught’ curriculum was
to be revised in order to match the newly integrated assessment model mandated
by the state. Teachers, community
leaders, and students were not necessarily ready for a curriculum revision
project , and the need for such a process was certainly not a priority in the
minds of many. As a small rural
district without a curriculum coordinator, the building principals were given
the responsibility for achieving the goal of developing an effective curriculum
revision program which would meet the needs of a 2lst century workforce. As in so many cases of effective educational
change, need born of necessity created this study, the results, and the
subsequent recommendations for effective curriculum revision
Summary: Review of Literature
Within the literature on curricular
revision, three major premises were identified. First, the society and culture served by an educational community
dictate the needs, obligations, and responsibilities expected of the
educational program. Second, society
perpetuates itself with educational programming, i.e. the content and
methodology of instruction referenced as educational
curriculum. Third, systemic change, as
in the form of transitioning educational curriculum, is often difficult at best
and controversial at worst. These three
elements combine to offer a strong foundation from which educators can begin to
address what is taught at all levels, the needs of a respondent society, and
the changing roles of classroom practitioners.
As noted above, the society and culture served by an educational
community dictate the needs, obligations, and responsibilities expected of the
educational program. A traditionally
accepted view of educational curriculum states that it (curriculum) is the
information which should be taught with the underlying purpose of
“standardizing” the behaviors of the society by educating the young in the
traditions and rituals of that culture (Beyer & Liston, l996; Borrowman,
l989; Glatthorn, l987; Tanner & Tanner, l995). Likewise, Glatthorn (l987) offered that beliefs and behaviors of
each ethnic group or geographical area were developed in order to foster and
teach children specific skills necessary for the transition from childhood to
adulthood, thereby sustaining or advancing the convictions of that
culture. In the same vein, but
addressing the need for change, Purpel (l972) proposed that the primary
responsibility for the child’s learning was historically determined by the
parent, but as society became more complex, the needs for specialized training
grew, necessitating more formal training. It is obvious, therefore, that the
curriculum must meet the needs and current demands of the culture, the society,
and the expectations of the population being served. To this end, the educational reform process is still undergoing
review, revision, and constant change.
Also noted above, society perpetuates itself with educational
programming, i.e. the content and methodology of instruction referenced as educational curriculum.
Borrowman (l989) stated that education is the process by which
individuals gain knowledge, skills, values, habits, and attitudes. Societal mores, cultural norms, and
practical needs compel the incorporation of various components of learning and
information. Hence, the educational
curriculum is vitally important to a society’s success and may become extremely
controversial when conflicting views emerge.
Finally, as noted earlier, systemic change, as in the form of
transitioning educational curriculum, is often a challenge to all concerned and
in some cases, may even create a negative, divisive environment. It is an accepted fact that without
acceptance and buy-in by all major
constituencies, long-lasting systemic change cannot occur. Cited by Beyer and
Liston (l996), James B. MacDonald (l975)
suggested that “ . . . in many ways, all curriculum design and development is
political in nature. . . . ” Continuing in that line of reasoning, Olson and
Rothman (l993) offered that while the last decade has been one of challenge and
excitement for American education, the fragmented and isolationist manner in
which many of the reform efforts have been implemented brought about no lasting
change. Substantiating this view that
change was necessary despite overt resistance, various authors (Henderson &
Hawthorne, l995; Jelinek, l978; Kallen, l996; Patterson, l997; Toch &
Daniel, l996, Wagner, l998) presented strong arguments that outdated strategies
(the implementation of curriculum) had to be discarded and ineffectual methodology
eliminated. Concurring with these views
that change was not only necessary but imminent, Scott (l994) declared that
curriculum revision projects of the past twenty years had in reality been
dismal failures with a high cost to taxpayers, students, and educators.
Monson and Monson (l993) presented
the need for collaborative, sanctioned revision by all stakeholders with an
emphasis on the performance of teacher leaders. It has been suggested that the
educational community must include those not usually considered to be at the
leading edge of school reform initiatives.
Hargreaves (l995) and Kyriakides (l997) both emphasized the importance
of creating coordinated efforts that supported a modification of teachers’
roles in policy revision as it related to curriculum review and revision. Despite the fact that the emergent view of
teachers’ roles are often in conflict with the traditional view of teachers’
performance (Monson & Monson, l993;
Hargreaves, l995; Scott, l994), the leadership roles of teachers are becoming
more prevalent, more dominant, and more demanding. Questions facing the educational community, therefore, revolve
around what reforms will be implemented, what process will be used, and how to
make the revisions effective and sustaining.
Accepting that changing an educational curriculum can be a challenge,
the involvement of all stakeholders, especially individuals who are directly
involved in student instruction, is an especially vital piece in successful
curriculum revision. The review of
literature substantiated the concern that until the parameters of curriculum
revision are defined and understood, the process will suffer from confusion and
failure for decades to come.
Background of the Investigation
As in many states during the l990s, educational
reform efforts in Missouri addressed educational curriculum revision which had
become closely tied to school districts’accreditation, assessment procedures,
and staff evaluation. Pleasing the constituencies, parents, business, and
communities, while simultaneously addressing test scores, community values, and
student needs, found principals and teachers torn between understanding what to
present, how to teach, and when to test.
The overall expectation, however, was to “jump in” and revise the instructional
curriculum, thereby “improving” existing instructional programs. Excellent materials were available; good
resources were developed; professional development opportunities were heavily
emphasized. Why then were so many
curriculum revision projects considered a “bust” when evaluated by the
administrative teams or community steering committees? Test scores did not indicate strong
improvement; in fact, in many cases they were considered inadequate or even
worse, disastrous. Teacher morale went down. Communities were in uproars about
“changing what their kids were taught.” While
some districts were experiencing tremendous success in the curriculum revision
projects and the subsequent assessment procedures, others were experiencing
total lack of improvement. There did
not appear to be a correlation between the amount of money spent and success of
the curriculum revision projects; nor did there appear to be a relationship to
the geographic or economic status of the districts experiencing success. The reasons for the lack of improvement were
as varied as the school districts or community members with whom one
spoke. What was the difference?
Based
on the anecdotal review, questions began to arise. While several primary
research questions were developed,
an overview of noteworthy areas included the
following:
1.
What determined the “success” of curriculum revision
processes?
2.
Were there specific factors that had a significant impact on
whether or not the revision project was successful?
3.
Did teachers have strong views on the process of curriculum
revision processes?
4.
Did teacher attitudes and/or backgrounds have an impact on
the success or failure of curriculum revision procedures?
5.
Did the revision procedures have an influence?
6.
What effect, if any, did pre-service training have on the
revision process?
7.
Could these factors be identified and generalized to other
programs?
Based on this initial examination of the topic, the research study was
developed. The
purpose of the
study was to determine what, if any, key elements would affect successful curriculum revision
projects. The goal of the study was to
determine correlates of successful programs that would enable teachers and
principals to progress through the revision process and to culminate the project with a strong instructional program and
a useable curriculum. The study was
conducted in a two-year research project concluding in the Spring of l999. The findings offered significant opportunity
for further study, information for practicing administrators and teachers, and
knowledge for teacher and principal preparation programs. Conclusions offer methods and means of
improving the effectiveness of curriculum revision programs. Since it is obvious that education will
continue to change and curriculum will perpetually be altered, this information
is of vital importance regarding principles for principals and effective
curriculum revision.
Procedure, Investigation,
Limitations
Procedure
The research design focused on perspectives of practitioners. The study
design was a quantitative analysis using a Likert scale response checklist.
Analyses of the 28 response options were combined with six constructed response opportunities blending a quantitative
analyses with a qualitative review. To further substantiate the data, 4 focus
groups were interviewed with general patterns and themes evaluated. The focus group participants were selected
from school districts not participating in the print survey instrument.
Investigation
The study sample consisted of
educational practitioners employed by public school districts within the
Southeastern quadrant of Missouri. A total of l47 districts were included in
the initial research sample. A total of
49 school districts were randomly selected representing one-third (33.3%) of
the total districts located within the identified geographical area. Of the total 49 districts requested to
participate, a total of 41 Superintendents responded in the affirmative for
participation. This equated to a total
of 246 surveys being submitted to practitioners. Of this initial mailing, 190
respondents returned surveys for a 77% response rate. Of these
participants, 73% were classroom teachers and 27% were building level and
central office leaders. The classroom
practitioners represented the core content areas of math, science, English, and
history as well as physical education, vocational education, and all special
programs within the traditional educational program.
Limitations
This study addressed an educational
issue of national significance, but this project was limited specifically to
the state of Missouri. The number of
participants and the number/size of school districts were limited and located
solely within the Southeastern quadrant of the state of Missouri. While
selection of the participants was done by random assignment, final designation
of respondents was at the discretion of the building level administrators.
Results of the Study
Based on the research results,
several conclusions were derived.
First, there was no major difference in teachers’ or administrators’
responses in the areas of gender, professional assignment, training, or
educational tenure. An area that did
appear to have strong significance was the in-service training component.
Overwhelmingly, districts provided in-service training, and respondents
considered this an essential element in the success of a curriculum revision
project. Teachers and principals both
emphasized the need for specific training.
They consistently stated that training in the actual revision process, a
clear understanding of the project, and a focused effort toward a cohesive
result, were imperatives.
Consistency of review and on-going assistance
were two areas additionally emphasized.
Teachers and principals both agreed that the traditional “one-shot”
in-service program was inadequate. In fact, statistical data were strongly
substantiated by the focus groups’ responses which portrayed the reason for
project success or failure as the periodic (weekly or monthly) meetings (or
lack thereof) on the revision processes.
A third area of repeated emphasis was the time element of the in-service
training. As stated above, the “one-shot”
in-service approach, a one time, in-depth in-service training, did not
work. Responses strongly focused on the
need for frequent interaction. Time
frames of hours, days, weeks, or months did not appear to have an impact.
Rather, the frequency of contact
during the time frame underscored the perceived success or failure of the
project.
Personal ownership within the
curriculum revision process was vital. Initiation of the curriculum revision
process did not appear to have significant impact. Within the interim process,
however, the actual personal
involvement in the revision project was extremely important. If the curriculum
were “brought in” by the administrators, outside experts, etc., the
effectiveness of the program was considered to be negligible. It is important to note the statistical results
indicated the effectiveness rate was considerably higher when the curriculum
was reviewed, rewritten, and established by practitioners directly using the
program.
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.
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.
REFERENCES
Beyer, L.E. & Liston, D.P. (l996). Curriculum in conflict: Social visions, educational agenda,
and progressive school reforms. New
York: Teachers College Press, Columbia
University.
Borrowman, M.L.(l989).
Curriculum. The world book encyclopedia, 6, 85-l06.
Chicago, IL: World Book, Inc.
Glatthorm, A.(l987). Curriculum renewal. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hargreaves, A. (l995). Renewal in
the age of paradox. Educational Leadership, 52 (7), l-9.
Henderson, J. & Hawthorne, R.
(l995). Transformative
curriculum leadership. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Merrill Publishing Company.
Jelinek, J. (Ed.). (l978). Improving the human condition: A
curriculur response to critical responses.
Washington, D.C.: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kallen, D. (l996). Curriculum reform
in secondary education: Planning, development, and implementation. European Journal of Education, 3l(l), 43-56.
Kyriakides, L. (l997). Influences on
primary teachers’ practice: Some problems for curriculum changes theory. British Educational Research
Journal,
23 (l), l-8.
MacDonald, J.B. (l975). Curriculum
and human interests. In W. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum theorizing: The reconceptualist, (283-294).
Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
Monson, M. P. & Monson, R. J.
(l993). Who creates the curriculum?: New roles for teachers. Educational Leadership, 2, l9-2l.
Olson, L. & Rothman, R. (l993).
Roadmap to reform. Education
Week,
l2 (30), l3-l7.
Patterson, J. (l997). Coming clean about organizational
change: Leadership in the real world. Arlington, VA: American Association of School
Administrators.
Purpel, D. (l972). Curriculum and the cultural
revolution: A book of essays and readings. Berkley, CA: McCutcheon Publishing
Corporation.
Scott, F.B. (l994). Integrating
curriculum implementation and staff development. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management, 67 (3),
l57-l6l.
Tanner, D. & Tanner, L. (l995). Curriculum development: Theory into
practice (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall Publishers.
Toch, T. & Daniel, M. (l996).
Schools that work. U.S.
News and World Report, l2l (4), 58-65.
Wagner, T. (l998). From compliance
to collaboration. Education
Week,
7 (32),
40-45.