lot out of it. In Daniel’s class, they were certainly working on career readiness standard 7 in English – integrating and evaluating diverse media formats. Students watched an informational video on a topic, which they covered in their textbooks. Then (because this class is conducted in a computer lab, for no particular reason) students did their own spontaneous research on the content on the Internet. All three classes had evidence of the teaching and use of academic and content specific vocabulary. (Excerpted from my classroom observation assignment)
It has always been our strength that we have excellent teachers, and though I found little alignment between the written and the taught ...view middle of the document...
This year, there will be no other standardized data available other than the CAHSEE (California high school exit exam). Our school, previous to WASC and Linked Learning, spent a bulk of time analyzing data in PD, but this year, we will have no data to look at. The Common Core curriculum, however, will be assessed through the Smarter Balance pilot exam that we gave to 11th graders in April, and through the pilot SPA (Standard periodic assessment) in Common Core, to be given in May. It is likely that teachers will not see the data produced as it is being given simply to pilot the tests and norm them.
At Westchester, teachers do not spend time looking at student work samples, or meeting to discuss common assessments, or performing any observation cycles outside of the evaluation and district induction processes – and none which control for curriculum alignment to the Common core. Ongoing progress and the assessment of data are done individually by teachers and results are not shared, nor are teachers accountable to that work.
As mentioned, the teachers I observed participating in any reflection on data belong in two categories: those being observed for the evaluation process, and those new teachers involved in the district induction program known as BTSA (beginning teachers support and assessment). Having participated in both programs, I know there is a large requirement to analyze teacher-produced tests within a recommended RTI2 framework (Response to intervention, squared), but there is little accountability to apply the data to future student learning in either program. In each case, only an individual teacher and their supervisor participate in the process, as opposed to a team or group.
“The learned curriculum is the bottom-line curriculum-the curriculum that students actually learn (Glatthorn & Jailall, 2009).”
With such major misalignment among the written, taught and assessed curriculum at my school site, it is quite difficult to get a grasp of the learned curriculum. Certainly in the past, as evidenced by our school report card figures, we have always outperformed LAUSD in English, and have been named a School of Excellence in English (Appendix A) education. Now with the Common core, there has not been an attempt on the State, district, or individual teacher level to assess depth and breadth of learning of the new standards.
The three teachers I observed as a part of this course of study preferred not to furnish me with student work samples – one teacher only allowed me to observe on the basis of complete anonymity. I must, therefore rely on questions I asked of students during or after the observations I conducted. Of those students polled, most seemed to have a grasp of the content, but had not done the higher order analysis required by the Common core, such as synthesis or assessment of bias in writing. I would consider it a strength the depth and complexity of comprehension students exhibited...