How Do Education Systems Support and Monitor
Curriculum Implementation?
During the past decade, content-driven systemic school reform has
emerged as a promising model for school improvement.(5)
That is, curriculum frameworks establishing what students should know
and be able to do provide a coherent direction for improving the quality
of instruction. Teacher preparation, instructional materials, and
other aspects of the system are then aligned to reflect the content
of the frameworks in an integrated way to reinforce and sustain high-quality
teaching and learning in schools and classrooms.
Education systems use different ways to achieve this desired connection
between the intended and the implemented curriculum. The methods used
by the 魅影直播 1999 countries to monitor curriculum implementation are
shown in Exhibit
5.5, and by states, districts, and consortia in Exhibits
5.6 through 5.8.
For example, teachers can be trained in the content and pedagogical
approaches specified in the curriculum guides. Another way to help
ensure alignment is to develop instructional materials, including
textbooks, instructional guides, and ministry notes, that are tailored
to the curriculum. Systems can also monitor implementation of the
intended curriculum by means of school inspection or audit.
Of the methods for supporting and monitoring curriculum implementation
shown in Exhibit
5.5, 10 countries reported using all six, and a further 13 countries
used five Support for the national/regional science curriculum as
part of pre-service education was reported by 24 of the 38 countries.
Nearly all countries (33) used in-service teacher education, and most
countries (31) used mandated or recommended textbooks. Ministry notes
and directives were used in 29 countries, and a system of school inspection
or audit was used in 31 countries.
States, districts, and consortia provided data on policies related
to textbook selection, pedagogical guides, and accreditation. As shown
in Exhibit
5.6, seven of the Benchmarking states reported that they do not
select textbooks for use at the local level. The other six states
issue a list of books from which districts can choose. Almost all
districts and consortia reported that their state does not select
textbooks, while three reported state involvement in textbook selection.
Ten jurisdictions indicated that textbooks were chosen or recommended
at the district level, and four that selection occurs at the school
level or, in the consortia, at the school and district level depending
on the district.
As shown in Exhibit 5.7, eight of the 13 Benchmarking states developed
materials that included pedagogical guidance for instruction and implementation
of the curriculum frameworks and standards. Ten districts and consortia
had at least state- or district-level guides to support curriculum
implementation. Two states and one consortium reported having documents
in draft. These materials, developed to support teachers in implementing
the curriculum, span a variety of types including ideas for classroom
activities, tool kits for planning instructional units, and sample
lessons.
As shown in Exhibit 5.8, six of the participating states had accreditation
systems, four of which included student performance on the state assessment
in their accreditation review (Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, and Oregon).
Two states without accreditation systems, Illinois and Texas, made
periodic site visits to evaluate schools. Only one consortium, the
Michigan Invitational Group, reported having an accreditation system
at the state level. The Academy School District in Colorado reported
that the state was in the process of implementing a system for 2001.
