Abstract
The time allocation of curriculum development is defined by the volume of work performed at each phase, the number of people involved, the presence of additional organizational and administrative factors, and, to some extent, the cost. The following paper suggests a timeline for the development of the fifth-grade curriculum program of Public Schools of Brookline. The table outlines the planned duration of each phase. The rationale presents a detailed account of the factors responsible for the placement decisions.
Curriculum Timeline
Rationale
The timeline above outlines curriculum development for a fifth-grade program of Public Schools of Brookline. The Brookline school district traditionally separates the development cycle for elementary and secondary programs. Such an approach is sometimes characterized as having a disruptive effect on the integrity of the curricular development process, which is inaccurate. The committee responsible for the design and implementation works closely with professionals from other fields to assure the collaboration and mutual integration of knowledge within the existing K12 pattern (CCRS Center, 2011).
At the same time, the design process prioritizes specific programs to ensure focused and dedicated progression. In relation to the time span, such an approach allows a more condensed effort and provides an opportunity to launch a program review every two years. The programs are clustered in three groups, which can be categorized as liberal arts, science, and languages (the latter is assigned a separate group because of the priorities characteristic for the fifth-grade education) (English, 2010).
Such clustering allows for better horizontal articulation on a small scale, i.e., the involvement of knowledge of related or marginal disciplines to enhance integration and interrelation across disciplines (Cullen & Hill, 2013). Aside from this, the teachers across the region are engaged in a district-wide horizontal articulation to ensure the synchronicity of actions, relevance, and cross-reference of knowledge, and maintaining the high standards set by the district and articulated in the mission statement (Public Schools of Brookline, n.d.).
Such a step also improves the time of each cluster’s progression along the timeline, as it provides opportunities for simultaneous development of several programs during one year. The resulting duration of the curriculum development cycle is six years, with an additional year introduced due to differences in complexity and cost of some programs. The review and subsequent development of each new cluster are initiated on a two-year basis.
It is important to note that the data collection and analysis is seamlessly performed on a small scale throughout the process by the Office of Strategy and Performance. On three occasions where areas of data collection are specified (FY 16, 18, and 20), a more rigorous level of assessment is utilized to account for the shortcomings of the previous program, which could have been overlooked previously.
For this reason, the needs assessment stage requires one full year to be completed. The development component is going on for two years, with the first year dedicated to setting goals and objectives, choosing and organizing educational content, and selecting delivery methods that allow for the most efficient delivery of the defined content. During the second year, the evaluation phase commences aimed at establishing the validity of the chosen content and delivery methods. While it rarely demands a full year cycle, the administrative and organizational particularities slow down the process enough to require additional time allocation (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013). Specifically, communication and cross-examination on a district-wide horizontal scale demand extra time.
The implementation phase is the most cost-demanding one since it relies heavily on the participation of external parties. Conversely, many of its steps are not time-consuming, which allows allocating the production of a curriculum product (including the search for the entity which can undertake the task) and testing of the resulting artifact within a single year. In case the testing confirms the previous success and no new issues surface, the recruitment and training phase begins.
Devising the staffing policies and providing training to synchronize the skills of the staff with the newly added and modified methods requires at least one year of development and implementation, hence the allocated slot in the timeline.
Finally, the implementation of the curriculum is reserved for the final year of the cycle, making six years total for each discipline cluster. The evaluation at this stage is performed mostly via formative tests, and the obtained data is processed on a regular basis without special emphasis on the newly modified field. As can be seen, the time constraints do not necessarily correlate with the cost of each phase. Besides, since no differences exist in the duration and cost of the same phase depending on disciplines, they are distributed evenly across the timeline.
References
CCRS Center. (2011). Successful K-12 transitions through vertical and horizontal articulation. Web.
Cullen, R., & Hill, R. R. (2013). Curriculum designed for an equitable pedagogy. Education Sciences, 3(1), 17-29.
English, F. W. (2010). Deciding what to teach and test: Developing, aligning, and leading the curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2013). Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues. Harlow, England: Pearson Education, Limited.
Public Schools of Brookline. (n.d.). Vision, mission, core values & goals. Web.