1 / 35

Is There a De Facto National Curriculum? Evidence from State Content Standards

Is There a De Facto National Curriculum? Evidence from State Content Standards. Andrew Porter and Morgan Polikoff, University of Pennsylvania John Smithson, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Background. Success of standards based reform depends on alignment

iolani
Télécharger la présentation

Is There a De Facto National Curriculum? Evidence from State Content Standards

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Is There a De Facto National Curriculum? Evidence from State Content Standards Andrew Porter and Morgan Polikoff, University of Pennsylvania John Smithson, University of Wisconsin-Madison

  2. Background • Success of standards based reform depends on alignment • National vs. state content standards • Policy attributes theory

  3. Questions • To what extent does there exist a de facto national curriculum, as represented by state content standards? • How focused are state content standards? • How demarcated is content across grade levels? • To what extent are state content standards aligned with national professional standards?

  4. Procedures • Surveys of Enacted Curriculum • Two-dimensional (content & cognitive demand) • ELAR, science, mathematics • Coarse- and fine-grained analysis • Alignment • Scale from 0 to 1 with 1=perfect alignment • Calculated at the fine grain

  5. Data • Completed since 2003 • Grades 4 & 8 • 14 states in mathematics, ELAR; 13 states in science; NSE & NCTM • Grades K-8 or 1-8 • 10 states in math, 7 in ELAR, 4 in science; NSE & NCTM

  6. Results Average alignment, maximums, and minimums among state content standards and national professional standards

  7. Coarse-grained content maps for the two most aligned states, ELAR grade 4 Alignment = .48

  8. Coarse-grained content maps for the two least aligned states, ELAR grade 8 Alignment = .07

  9. Coarse-grained content maps for the most aligned state, Science grades 4 and 8 Alignment = .52

  10. Coarse-grained content maps for the least aligned state, Science grades 4 and 8 Alignment = .12

  11. Coarse-grained content maps for the two most aligned states, Mathematics grades 1-8 Alignment = .62

  12. Coarse-grained content maps for the two least aligned states, Mathematics grades 1-8 Alignment = .36

  13. Coarse grained content maps for the most aligned state to NSE Standards, Science grades 1-8 Alignment = .50

  14. Coarse grained content maps for the least aligned state to NCTM Standards, Mathematics grades 1-8 Alignment = .35

  15. Contrast of most and least focused states, coarse grained, ELAR grade 4

  16. Conclusions • No evidence of a de facto national curriculum • Alignments moderate when aggregated across grades, low for individual grades • Some evidence of small core curriculum • 8-13 cells per subject with emphasis > .01 • Capture 10-36% of content depending on state/subject

  17. Fine-grained content maps for Comprehension for the two most aligned states, ELAR grade 4

  18. Fine-grained content maps for Writing Components for the two most aligned states, ELAR grade 4

  19. Fine-grained content maps for Comprehension for the two least aligned states, ELAR grade 8

  20. Fine-grained content maps for Writing Components for the two least aligned states, ELAR grade 8

  21. Fine-grained content maps for Earth Systems for the most aligned state, Science grades 4 and 8

  22. Fine-grained content maps for Ecology for the most aligned state, Science grades 4 and 8

  23. Fine-grained content maps for Earth Systems for the least aligned state, Science grades 4 and 8

  24. Fine-grained content maps for Ecology for the least aligned state, Science grades 4 and 8

  25. Fine-grained content maps for Number Sense for the two most aligned states, Mathematics grades 1-8

  26. Fine-grained content maps for Basic Algebra for the two most aligned states, Mathematics grades 1-8

  27. Fine-grained content maps for Number Sense for the two least aligned states, Mathematics grades 1-8

  28. Fine-grained content maps for Basic Algebra for the two least aligned states, Mathematics grades 1-8

  29. Contrast of most and least focused states, fine grained for Comprehension, ELAR grade 4

  30. Contrast of most and least focused states, fine grained for Writing Components, ELAR grade 4

  31. Fine grained content maps for Earth Systems for the most aligned state to NSE Standards, Science grades 1-8

  32. Fine grained content maps for Ecology for the most aligned state to NSE Standards, Science grades 1-8

  33. Fine grained content maps for Number Sense for the least aligned state to NCTM Standards, Mathematics grades 1-8

  34. Fine grained content maps for Basic Algebra for the least aligned state to NCTM Standards, Mathematics grades 1-8

  35. Conclusions, continued • Within-state 4-8 alignment as high or higher than between-state alignment • State alignment with national professional standards no greater than among states • Considerable variation across states in level of focus • States use between 2%-14% of the cells to capture 80% of the total curriculum

More Related