Twisted by Li-So
Mindset – the ideas and attitudes in which a person approaches a situation, especially when these are seen as being difficult to alter. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mind-set)
The Way We Were…
For the last don’t-know-how-many-years, curriculum adoptions in our district have been pretty cut and dry. Each year, there has been about the same funding earmarked for new materials. Every 8 years a content area like science or social studies would have funding allocated for materials refurbishment. The division of the funds was based on a formula on the percentage of students involved in the course and the length and depth of the course itself. Typically, more funding was set aside for math, literacy, science and social studies. Less funding was set aside for art, music, physical education, languages, and career & technical education. Our mental mindset to curriculum adoption was pretty much set. There were some pretty clear expectations as to the funds that were available. The organization maintained a sense of stability since the funds that were available were pretty much the same funds that were available in the past. Until the last several years.
Early Stages of Shifting Mindset
The first signs of pressure on our system stemmed from increased costs of materials as offered by publishers and vendors. Coupled with flat funding, this meant that a typical adoption would provide fewer resources. In many cases, this meant instead of buying a text for each student, a classroom text was purchased instead. This pressure was pesky and bothersome, but it didn’t cause us to shift our adoption mindset. We just bought less and grumbled more and tried to figure out why weren’t getting any more money to buy what we thought we needed.
Additional elements of pressure began when the nature of materials began to shift from paper to digital formats, thus impacting the types of curriculum materials needed. Pre-engineering labs, graphics labs, streamed content, internet or server-based interventions. All these required curriculum dollars be spent on hardware and software and technical support. The mindset shifted; the types of materials a district could purchase with what was essentially considered previously a textbook adoption cycle. With more and more resources flowing to non-textbook purchases, flexibility in thinking about how to use the available funds increased. However, some of the purchases made for specific content areas required yearly allocations for content subscriptions. This was troublesome for the existing curriculum adoption system. As annual commitments to certain programs increased, the number of dollars for new cycle purchases decreased. These annual commitments began to impact the total amount of funding available for each subsequent adoption.
At the present, we are facing some of our greatest challenges. Decreased state revenue has in turn decreased school district funding allocations. Last year our district switched from an incremental budget to a zero-based budget. Instead of being presented with a total amount of funds that could be spent on the upcoming adoption, we were asked to present our materials needs in advance of the budget being funded. The 2010-2011 year was the social studies adoption year. A curriculum gap analysis found that the greatest need was in the 6th and 7th grades where the new state standards were vastly different from our current curriculum. A plan was drafted to meet the needs in these courses and funding was allocated to a greater degree for these grades than other grades. We took a giant step towards a needs-based mindset. But, we still grumble a bit because it just doesn’t seem fair.
The Way We Need to Be…
As we enter our 2011-2012 school year we look to our adoption cycle that was set over eight years ago. According to this document, it is now science, physical education, and career and technical education’s “turn” to refurbish materials. With more cuts likely, it seems unlikely that we will be able to fund these content areas with dollars equal to the previous adoption cycle. Many district’s like ours have put their entire adoption cycle on hold until funding streams get back to normal. I’m not so certain we will ever get back to normal. Normal funding or normal adoptions.
The New Normal
A needs-based curriculum adoption is inherently different from an incremental based adoption cycle. It necessitates that systems and structures are in place to effectively analyze the needs based on learning in the 21st century. They understand the current state of curriculum materials that include Open Education Resources (OER), hardware, software, subscription-based content and paper-based materials. The supporting materials must align with the student learning outcomes that elevate problem-solving, information literacy, global connectivity, productivity, and inquiry learning. These are areas of reflection for our P-12 Content Councils and our overarching Curriculum Improvement Council as much as they are for our entire district and the community we serve.
Moving forward into the 2011-2012 school year, we have identified our greatest curriculum gap in science. This means that we will likely not fund adoptions for physical education, health and career and technical education this coming year. We may have some funding to sustain programs in these content areas, but we will use greater amounts of funds to address the gaps that are present in science.
We will explore the current research related to science learning and science education. We will look to our colleagues in higher education, business, and the field. We will reach out to those in our community to help us reflect upon our current state of science instruction and materials and we will identify needs with a critical eye knowing that we will have to make difficult decisions with the resources available to us.
We must also take into account how future politics at the federal and state level will make us shift even further. We can plan for the future but the future will change based on factors that we have not anticipated. See link below:
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/03/20/obama-s-war-on-schools.html
A needs- based curriculum adoption is valid in theory; however, “effectively analyzing” the needs based on learning in the 21st Century is the problem. The way I see it, we have prioritized subjects based on what our predecessors identified as key learning (for the 19th Century) and what the state deems most important as evidenced by the CSAP test. The truth is that the students we are educating today are most likely going to have occupations far removed from the industrial revolution that created this educational system and hierarchy of subjects. The fact remains that our students are going to have to be ready for anything that hits them. Lets face it, one can look up facts and formulas, but the ability to put them together in a new way as to address unforeseen problems is an issue of creativity. I would like to encourage our P-12 Curriculum Council and the Curriculum Improvement Council to read: A Whole New Mind by Daniel Pink. Think about it, HOW are we “effectively analyzing” the needs of our students and what brought us to these conclusions? “Imagination is more important than knowledge” – Albert Einstein.
Valid comments by all. Who will be assessing the cross curricula application of resources? Who will be giving the analytic eye of those needs? With PE and health using texts that are over 10 years old can we evaluate the Science adoption to help the Health curriculum? If we make these large investments in technology, i.e. iPads for Social Studies adoption, how do we insure cross curricular use of these resources?
This seems like a very pragmatic and cost-effective way to approach curriculum needs. Yet, how will we come to consensus regarding technology-based needs for the future? Each school has different hardware and software resources and needs. Each teacher has a unique style and method of teaching. And we don’t even know the final state standards in science. I am skeptical that the district will support these needs if it means MORE money spent on science that they anticipated.
I think the needs based curriculum adoption is an interesting idea. I think a lot of good could come of this, but I also think we have to be cautious about how we go about it. With everyone getting new standards, there is going to be holes that our current texts do not fill. We are going to have to be open to the idea of supplementing with other materials to make sure we are meeting all of our new curriculum standards. With this all coming at once, I think a lot of people are going to feel like their areas should have top priority of funding for those supplemental materials. I think however we go about this, there is going to need to be a lot of open communication of why money is going where it is and how other areas may be addressed and when if they were not put up front.
I think that we do indeed need to shift our mindset about curriculum adoptions and the way we spend our resources on materials. Things are indeed changing. Our students need to be able to “learn, unlearn, and relearn.” Spending large sums of money on any one set of materials may not be the best way to go. Focussing on one content area at the expense of any other does not seem very good either. It seems that if we can invest in “Tools” (technology, programs etc.) that can be accessed by several grade levels and content areas we may get more “bang for our buck.” Students, and teachers, should look for ways to integrate tools and materials in multiple areas if possible. With ever decreasing budgets, we need to get more creative, share, and take advantage of free and low cost resources that are available. Also knowing that many of our students will walk in our doors with internet capable devices, we should plan to use that to our advantage, instead of fighting against it. Therefore freeing up some of our limited funds we would otherwise use on hardware. Many content areas will still need to spend money on curriculum resources. Additional funds may be needed for supplemental materials. We should be careful though not to invest large sums on materials that only serve a small need. We need to be flexible and look for ways to put tools into our students hands and allow them to use those to facilitate their learning.
The previous posts are extremely valid points. I do agree with a needs-based funding, but it’s going to be defining those needs that will be the most difficult. Is it all completely “standards-based”? Is it building needs-based? Is it whoever gets the most creative ideas put forward? Is it like grant-writing? Is it who gets the idea in the fastest and to what decision-making body? Is it based on 21st century learning? Our district is being driven by 21st century skills, literacy, CSAP scores, new standards, closing the gap, graduation rates, math literacy, and on and on….. Which one of these important areas will drive the decision-making about curriculum that gets purchased for our classrooms. Is it still a reasonable goal in education to have students be able to read a textbook and garner valuable information from it? Are online books worthy of the subscription? There are so many questions. I feel like we need more direction around how to define our “needs” and who will be judging the requests. Who will be evaluating what gets precedence over something else? This is brand new territory for so many of us and it is really valuable education dollars we will be spending. I want to make sure we do it fairly, justly, and add value to our curriculum.
I agree to buy one set of materials may not be the best way to go. Another issue is whether we should purchase textbooks or should we look for content resource books or databases? However, if students do not learn to use textbooks will they be prepared for college where they may still be expected to use textbooks?
As we look ahead to the time when more students will choose to take part of their classes online how will our needs for resources change? There will be times that students will need to be in a school building. For example to use expensive equipment, specialized software and to work collaboratively with their peers.
If we taught hybrid courses would we need books or would create simulations that are more like what they will do in a career? Do we have enough bandwidth for the computer access that our students will need to learn this way in most class at least part of the time?
“Needs-based” funding seems like a fair concept. I wonder if there will be a time when learners can have a tool like an iPad that they can personalize. How does that change the way we use funds for instruction?
Seems like our biggest need is access to computer labs or mobile labs for use with classes. I wonder if there is a way to phase this in…other wants/needs may have to be limited until this is accomplisherd,
What are others doing? There are probably many other districts in the same boat with technology…
The following stats are approximate. Only 60% of high school graduates go to college. That leave 40% doing what? Of the 60% that started college, 20% finish. That leave another 40% doing what? There needs to be a shift in the thinking that every student needs to take specific and mandatory classes. If we as a society want to see well rounded educated populace that can problem solve and build the infrastructure around us, we need to dedicate more resources and funding to the 80% that are not college bound and still work in a successful career! You can find these stats from many sources.
Sciencsaurus is a great reference book for middle school. It includes short pieces of information text about earth, life and physical science. A classroom set with a few extras for checkout is a much better investment than a book for each student. The new science standards have many of expectatins for using technology. We will need to have acess to technology resources to met the standards.
Will the $ end up all going to Math and English? I worry about getting to tech crazy – we can’t keep up and students still need books!
Everyone’s comments are very valid. A needs based adoption cycle has the potential to be more effective, and reach more needs than the previous cycle. Clear parameters are critical. Will we define them to be strictly around the new standards, or the alignment of student learning outcomes that elevate problem-solving, information literacy, global connectivity, productivity, and inquiry learning. Will professional development $ be part of adoption to insure the most effective implementation?
While a needs-based curriculum adoption sounds ideal, I think finding common needs might be the challenge. It seems, for the most part, technology needs do seem to be a common thread. However, as Scott mentioned, there are different needs at different schools. In addition, not only are the teaching methods different but how much technology experience teachers have covers even a bigger margin. With the science standards up in the air, it would be difficult to adopt a text that may or may not cover what the standards will be. We have all had to ‘make do’ with materials before when changes have been made. Now it is just a matter of finding what to make do with and what needs should be addressed.
I think the zero-based funding approach worked very well for social studies, but that was when there was only one subject area to worry about, rather than three, and just as Diane mentioned still some felt the outcome to be “unfair.”
Finding community partners, free or externally funded resources, and other avenues to update, enhance, and innovate curriculum is clearly one of the biggest challenges teachers of the 21st century face, across to board; I hope the district will realize this priority nd can gear both district and building gatherings to allowing for time to adequately develop these support networks and locate/create quality resources to utilize.
I believe that zero-based funding can work, but I also believe alternate funding sources need to be pursued to even come close to meeing needs in this district. Instead of a self-sufficiency model, what about an “it takes a village” philosphy? District time, in part, could be spent assessing and accessing the “village’s” resources. I appreciate the “walk throughs” by district administrators; perhaps they could also “walk through” places like HP and ACE and work in conjunction with Larimer County.
Smart thinking from all. I think that we have no option BUT to be flexible. We can no longer assume money will be available, and we will have to prioritize needs – keeping STUDENTS at the center of those needs. Can we partner with other districts/businesses to go about this new reality in a smart way? If someone else has a good system let’s not recreate the wheel.
Wow! I find myself agreeing with everyone. Each comment I read above has validity and I’m nodding my head as I read. I have the same concerns and the same hopes. This is uncharted territory for the most part and I don’t know that we have enough information to go forward, but I don’t believe we can go backward either. We do need changes from the old school curriculum adoptions of the past. As for the future, I can’t even guess!
For adoption materials, we need to look at the standards and the materials necessary to teach those standards effectively. The new standards are very technology heavy with computer models and simulations part of the standard. With the event of so much computer based testing with language arts and math, ie acuity, ssr, and the like we need more hardware and software in the buildings to have access to the technology to fulfill these standards. Also, textbooks are not a good resource when the nature of science changes so quickly and the material in the book may be out of date even before it gets to your classroom. Student access to Ipad or another form of online non-fiction text materials is needed. In addition, science is an inquiry based hands on content area that needs support for consumable materials for labs and activities. In addition, there is various equipment associated with the teaching of science that needs to be purchased and maintained (ie. microscopes)This needs to be taken into consideration in the budget. We also need to consider the financial resources of particular schools and the differences in socio economic make up for the schools.