Although discussions of NCLB and IDEIA do not typically focus on issues around alignment, it is nevertheless a critical feature underlying these policies, particularly NCLB. One common definition of alignment is the extent “to which expectations and assessments are in agreement and serve in conjunction with one another to guide the system toward students learning what they are expected to know and do” (Webb, 2002, p. 1). This particular definition focuses on assessments and “expectations,” the latter of which could be interpreted as standards, a written curriculum, or perhaps instructional content. For purposes of this article, we use the terms curriculum, instruction, and assessment (CIA) as the educational components being examined for degree of alignment. One of the concluding statements from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) gives perhaps the most comprehensive yet concise rationale for examining CIA alignment. Schmidt, McKnight, Cogan, Jakwerth, and Houang (1999) referred to the findings from this study as indicating that the curriculum in math and science in the United States is “a mile wide and an inch deep.” The “mile wide” statement can be understood as a reference to the breadth of curricular content, or the number of different topics covered in the curricular content. The “inch deep” statement can be understood as a reference to the depth of curricular content, or the emphasis and intensity with which the instructional content is taught. In the case of TIMSS, the results indicated that the mathematics and science curricula in the United States generally focuses on a wide variety of different topics/content (i.e., extensive breadth), but does not place a lot of emphasis or instructional intensity on this curricular content (i.e., limited depth).
It is the mission of the Division of Curriculum and Instruction (C&I) to support the AACPS Strategic Plan goals and indicators established to ensure that all of our students are well-prepared for college and the workforce and to empower them to create a better quality of life for themselves, their communities, and the next generation. We are committed to accelerating the achievement of all students and to eliminating achievement gaps. The Division provides the leadership and resources necessary for schools to build capacity for continuous growth and improvement in teaching and learning. C&I is comprised of the Curriculum, Instruction, Curriculum Assessments, Special Education, and Compensatory Education offices.
The Eden Prairie Schools recognizes that involvement of the community is essential to carry out the overall educational mission of the District. To ensure this involvement, the Eden Prairie Schools has established a process for curriculum review to support our processes and decision-making and to meet the requirements of Statute M.S. 120B.11 and district policy 616. The role of the Curriculum Advisory Committee (CAC) is to review and comment and, when appropriate, recommend to the School Board rigorous academic standards, student achievement goals and measures, assessments, and program evaluations
The ISD #129 Implementation Manual for State Assessments is available in the Principals’ Offices, MHS Guidance Office, and Curriculum Office. This manual contains the district’s implementation policies and procedures for all state assessments. Also included in this manual are:
The purpose of organizing a portfolio is to evaluate students’ professional growth, knowledge of subject matter, teaching skills and professional dispositions. The portfolio will be organized around the ten professional standards outlined by Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (INTASC). The Department of Curriculum and Instruction has chosen these ten standards for their general applicability for teachers of all disciplines and grade levels. Students who choose the portfolio option are required to begin the process of collecting artifacts and other relevant materials early in their program. The courses in your program will offer a variety of artifacts related to the INTASC standards that you will be able to use in your portfolios. The portfolio should have a cover page, table of contents, philosophical statements and artifacts. Sample portfolios will be on reserve at the library and the PEP office for your review. To help students organize their portfolios in a systematic fashion, the Department recommends the following book as a guide:
expectations as a result of the Sputnik scare. The challenge we face is that the rise in achievement has not been as great as international, economic, and social conditions demand. In the past decade, the collision of a number of impulses—lackluster improve- ments in student performance, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ (NCTM) development of a set of standards for what students should know and be able to do in mathematics, technological advances, and research on how students learn—has inspired another round of innovations in mathematics instruction, often called “new-new” math. These innovations have spurred yet another, often contentious debate. While there are many different aspects to these “math wars,” the fundamental differences of opinion reside in the relative balance promoted between the teaching of computational skills and the development of problem solving skills. Proponents of focusing teaching on computation- al skills stress the importance of students knowing how to do mathematical operations and having a strong command of number sense and operations. These reformers fear, for exam- ple, that the widespread use of tools such as calculators might allow students to get by with- out developing strong number sense. Meanwhile, proponents of a focus on problem solving skills stress that not only do students arrive at answers by vastly different means, their beliefs about what numbers represent vary widely. Focusing teaching on identifying those beliefs and strategies, then, had been the domain of the latter set of education reformers.
The integration of knowledge is made more difficult by typical large-scale and classroom assessments ostensibly based on the standards. Such assessments commonly focus on targeted, isolated topics that do not require students to connect currently taught concepts with concepts from other science areas that were previously learned (NRC, 2005; Pellegrino, Chudowsky, & Glaser, 2001). Instead, these assessments encourage teachers to focus on isolated bodies of knowledge that ultimately results in compartmentalized application of science concepts. As a result, the traditional curriculum often compartmentalizes the various aspects of the study of matter (e.g. structure of matter, conservation of matter, chemical reactions, phase changes). The authors of documents such as Benchmarks for Science Literacy (AAAS, 1993) and the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) suggested connections between key concepts among multiple disciplines in the sciences. However, these connections have not been borne out in most science curricula nor are they a part of typical assessment practices. Thus, in order to generate literacy in emerging sciences, school curricula must begin to emphasize not only the learning of individual topics, but also the connections between them and assessments must be developed to support such a curriculum.
All elementary principals attended a Racial Equity workshop. Schools promote race relations, cross cultural understanding and human rights throughout the curriculum, as well as taking advantage of teachable moments. 2.1.7 Principals will schedule regular class visits to ensure best
The process of arriving at an agreed statement is important because it encourages communication about each person's plans, goals, and expectations for her or himself and each other. The mutually agreed upon statement may take many forms, e.g., a list of goals for each person or an open letter. It is vital that the student teacher is very active in this process to ensure that the semester is individually tailored to meet her or his needs. The final Statement of Expectations represents the curriculum for the student teaching experience.
Written Exam: Within the framework of the purposes stated above, the specific content and scope of the written examination questions are at the discretion of the committee. One possible written exam format consists of questions drawn from four major areas: educational foundations, educational research, curriculum and instruction, and the specialty area. For this format, the total time given to the examination is generally 16 hours divided over four 4-hour sessions. However, other written exam formats are possible. Regardless of the format, the chair of the advisory committee is responsible for coordinating the construction and grading of the examination. Advisory committee members are responsible for the design and grading of questions in their areas, with input from other committee members. Each committee member will evaluate all written responses from the student. In general, specific comprehensive exam questions are typically not provided beforehand, but some sense of direction or focus may be provided. Scoring for each response will be pass, borderline, or non-pass. Oral Exam: This process focuses on issues, questions, and concerns related to the written comprehensive exam. The oral comprehensive exam will be evaluated by the advisory committee members. The majority of committee members must be present at the oral examination. This is the venue in which committee feedback to the written exam is shared and discussed. The oral exam will be scheduled not less than two weeks after advisory committee members have received the written comprehensive exam responses.
It is crucial that targeted instruction approaches are implemented in a way that reduce, rather than exacerbate, inequality. Streaming children into ability groups permanently can have negative impacts on equity and goes against the principles of inclusive education. Targeted instruction should be carried out with the primary goal of helping children who are behind the level of instruction to achieve foundational skills. However, more evidence and disaggregated data is needed on TaRL and targeted instruction interventions to understand their impacts on marginalized children. See the Save Our Future background paper Unlock Education for All: Focus on the Furthest Behind for considerations on supporting marginalized students to return to school and learn.
The Necessity Principle: For students to learn what we intend to teach them, they must have a need for it, where by ‘need’ is meant intellectual need, not social or economic need. Most students, even those who are eager to succeed in school, feel intellectually aimless in mathematics classes because we—teachers—fail to help them realize an intellectual need for what we intend to teach them. The term intellectual need refers to a behavior that manifests itself internally with learners when they encounter an intrinsic problem—a problem they understand and appreciate. For example, students might encounter a situation that is incompatible with, or presents a problem that is unsolvable by, their existing knowledge. Such an encounter is intrinsic to the learners for it stimulates a desire within them to search for a resolution or a solution, whereby they might construct new knowledge. There is no guarantee that the learners construct the knowledge sought or any knowledge at all, but whatever knowledge they construct is meaningful to them since it is integrated within their existing cognitive schemes as a product of effort that stems from and is driven by their personal, intellectual need. Whereas one should not underestimate the importance of students’ social need (e.g., mathematical knowledge can endow me with a respectable social status in my society) and economic need (e.g., mathematical knowledge can help me obtain comfortable means of living) as learning factors, teachers should not and cannot be expected to stimulate— let alone fulfill—these needs. Intellectual need, on the other hand, is prime responsibility of teachers and curriculum developers.
The library-led CRC has limitations and unique challenges. First, because the workshop was guided by the students’ challenges and example search processes, some librarians who were involved were concerned that some topics, including Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), were not sufficiently explained. Second, librarians who were used to providing rehearsed guest lectures found it challenging to improvise answers to questions. Third, while collaborating with the medical school and integrating into the curriculum were positive experiences, librarians had to give up some control. For example, a librarian wrote a pre-test question that asked students to perform a search in PubMed. However, students were unable to perform the search because access to other computer programs was locked down by the medical school exam software.
candidates in this department. The handbook describes the M.S. in Curriculum and Instruction, current policies of the department with regard to admission, course-load requirements, transfer of graduate course credit, program requirements, minimum standards for satisfactory progress toward the degree, the Master’s Examination, and areas of study. The information herein reflects current policies of the department and the Graduate School; and these are subject to change. Specific questions and concerns regarding the Curriculum and Instruction Graduate Program can addressed to the Graduate Program Coordinator in person (Ms. Marilyn Fearn, Room 210-C Teacher Education Building), by phone at 1-608-263-7466, by email at
Library and information science students who do not have experience interacting with people with disabilities may be intimidated by the prospect. Courses in specialized user groups, reference, reader’s advisory, circulation management, children’s and young adult services and any other course that focuses on librarian-patron interaction should have some instruction in etiquette and communication issues concerning people with disabilities. More and more people with disabilities are interacting socially and professionally with people who do not have disabilities. Some people with disabilities have difficulty communicating, which can lead to stress both for them and the people with whom they are trying to communicate. There are commonly accepted conventions of ‘disability etiquette’ which are designed to make interaction between people with disabilities and people without more effective and less awkward.
The Curriculum and Instruction with a major in Special Education Studies (SES) Master’s degree program requires a minimum of 33 semester hours of study. The program is appropriate for individuals already certified in an area of special or general education or for individuals wishing to update or increase their knowledge of special education. This program is accredited through CAEP as an “advanced program,” but is it NOT a teacher certification program approved by the Florida Department of Education or by any other state. PLEASE NOTE THAT MANY COURSES REQUIRE YOU TO OBSERVE, ASSESS, AND/OR DEVELOP INTERVENTION PROGRAMS FOR LEARNERS WITH DISABILITIES.