School learning succession: written curriculum

Most schools in the United States still require teachers to write individual lesson plans to document strategies for meeting aims and objectives. Few teachers receive any regular feedback on these individual forms. And most are required to write them again, year after year. In these contexts, compliance is more important than quality and improvement is isolated and often managed by administrators who are busy with a range of priorities. The reality is, that individual lessons plans are an outdated approach to planning. Jay McTighe and Grant Wiggins published Understanding by Design (UbD) framework in the late 90’s and here we are still forward planning, in most schools, and trying to use data to inform instruction, without using tools that can help improve practices.

Backward Planning vs. Forward Planning

Why do so few schools backward plan? Perhaps because to do so requires more than teacher training, time, and a willing culture. It requires a system for which to organize the progression of learning. Learning experiences that is happen in individual classrooms miss the opportunity to ensure students are transferring what they understand and the things they can do, across contexts. This kind of cognitive flexibility is increasingly more important for the future of work (Future Jobs Report, World Economic Forum, 2018). To design a connected experience across subject areas and grade levels, schools need a systematic framework that empowers students able to make their own connections across their learning experiences over time. Wouldn’t it be great if each educator had a clearer picture of what students have learned and developed in the years prior, and what they are working toward in the years ahead?

Connected learning is systematic

The most successful learning environments in the are interconnected and designed to facilitate student driven growth. Many nations have organized education in this way so that there is authentic continuity and alignment. The International Baccalaureate has created this system and structure to be portable across more than 120 different counties and taught in more than 90 different languages. Systems and frameworks should empower innovation, not restrict it. So why don’t we see this kind of organization in United States contexts? When I have asked lead educators what systems schools are using to organize themselves around learning, some have suggested they use NGSS or Common Core standards, others have talked about the accountabilities for teacher licensing. The reality is, that none of these are systems because they do not interconnect. They are not designed to intersect, correlate, or integrate learning across subject disciplines and are perhaps best classified as base-line tools for quality.  

Bigger design thinking for US education

Governing bodies and local governments could think of ways to develop a flexible framework for developing teacher quality through professional development that is related to the approaches to learning designed to connect learning experiences across contexts. Why shouldn’t we work to develop a systematic web for which teachers build units of study that can be refined and redefined over time. A UbD philosophy and practice provides a basis to reflect on the actions and strategies that drive forward targeted improvement, rather than reinventing the wheel every single time a lesson is to be taught. Through use of a written curriculum, we also have clearer reference points for what can be done to increase student success. Perhaps with a well-designed system, we could determine appropriate times for benchmark testing, and use the data as one of the resources for which to improve instruction. 

Leave a legacy of learning

Units of work that are grouped around themes and concepts enable students to develop deep, enduring understanding rather than focusing on content in isolation. A designed and integrated written curriculum which captures the aims, objectives, various methods of assessment, opportunities for differentiation, and other useful strategies is the core of what schools need for construct a legacy of learning, for the future student groups, and future teachers. We should use the written curriculum to reflect on what we have tried, what worked, and to know where we are headed. Improvement of our practices should be grounded in the immediate future, and  for the years to come. Future school communities can will benefit from schools who have learned, and document this growth as a resource for the future. 

QUESTION: How do we build this kind of quality without a systematic approach across schools and school systems?