Ongoing Curriculum Alignment Process Overview

7/30/2019 Ongoing Curriculum Alignment Process Overview

1/9

Av. Professor Mario Werneck, 3002 Buritis

Belo Horizonte Minas Gerais Brazil 30575-180

+55-31-3378-6700 [email protected] eabh.com.br

Ongoing Curriculum Alignment Process

Background

The Ongoing Curriculum Alignment Process (OCAP) is a multi-pronged method for maintaining alignment

between the curriculum and core beliefs of the school. This process is not subject-specific, but dynamic,

ongoing, and simultaneous for all areas of curriculum. Although this follows a designated cycle, the process

is about encompassing all aspects of curriculum to tie back into comprehensive, student-centered

curriculum.

Two-Year Review Cycle

This cycle, a major component of the Ongoing Curriculum Alignment Process, incorporates seven tasks,

each of which is informed by the External Evaluation Processes of the PYP, MYP, and AdvancED (each of

which informs the other, particularly in terms of the basis for continual growth through whole school

improvement and department-level improvement goals). These External Evaluation Processes are each

informed by self-assessment designated by the evaluation agency. Each of these processes takes intoconsideration how the school uses assessment and learning objectives to inform goals and teaching.

Task 1

School-wide Foundational Elements

A core planning team of students, board members, parents, teachers, and school leadership refines the

school-wide mission, beliefs and values, vision, and student learning objectives. These agreements underpin

all decisions and ensure that additional components of the Ongoing Curriculum Alignment Process move the

school towards achieving an evolving vision.

Task 2Departmental Foundational Elements

The departments of the school tailor departmental mission statements, belief and values statements, vision

statements, and student learning objectives that are considerate of the particular needs of those departments

while ensuring the successful attainment and alignment of school-wide elements created in Task 1; these

departmental foundational elements fit beneath and support the school-wide foundational elements.

Task 3

Learning Targets

Each department reviews standards, benchmarks, and grade level indicators to ensure they build to student

success of school-wide learning objectives.

Task 4

Units of Study

All units are designed using the UbD format of backwards design, with each department using a particular

model adapted to its program. Units are reviewed to ensure the overarching aims of each unit are appropriate

vertically, horizontally, in reference to departmental learning targets, and in reference to school-wide

learning objectives. For most years, this task is intended for review and very slight adjustments.

This task occurs twice during the review cycle (Task 4 and Task 7), and establishes a timeline for all other

tasks. Unit reviews are conducted between April and June of each year, and may continue into the following

school year in August, so that exiting and entering teachers are aware of the continuum of learning. Every

fifth year, this process incorporates actual rearrangement of elements of the continuum within a department,

where necessary.

Affiliations:Southern Association of Colleges and SchoolsSecretaria de Estado da Educao-MG IB World School, PYPAssociation of American Schools in South America IB World School, MYPAssociation of American Schools in Brazil


2/9




Task 5

Transdisciplinary Skills

The Learner Profile, departmental-specific transdisciplinary skills, and 21st century skills, are acknowledged

in all unit plans. This process of review, which is an extension of Task 4, examines the suitability of

inclusion, horizontally and vertically, of these skills, and ensures that teaching as laid out in the unit plans is

designed to foster appropriate development.

Task 6

Resources and PD

Teams evaluate resources currently available in each department to account for overlap and need. These

teams also evaluate areas of need for professional development and training.

Task 7

Units of Study

All units are designed using the UbD format of backwards design, with each department using a particular

model adapted to its program. Units are reviewed to ensure the overarching aims of each unit are appropriatevertically, horizontally, in reference to departmental learning targets, and in reference to school-wide

learning objectives. For most years, this task is intended for review and very slight adjustments.

This task occurs twice during the review cycle (Task 4 and Task 7), and establishes a timeline for all other

tasks. Unit reviews are conducted between April and June of each year, and may continue into the following

school year in August, so that exiting and entering teachers are aware of the continuum of learning. Every

fifth year, this process incorporates actual rearrangement of elements of the continuum within a department,

where necessary.

External Evaluation Processes

There are three agencies that evaluate aspects of the school. The particular process for each evaluationagency is unique, but there are also many parallel elements across the three processes. Each agency sends a

team of evaluators every five years to assess the effectiveness of teaching, learning, assessment, and the use

of data; the management of programs and curriculum; and the allocation of resources and professional

development. Each process follows these broad steps (along with unique requirements), and is informed by

each other, and by the Two-Year Review Cycle.

Administrative Self-Review

Each process is guided by standards (i.e., sections on philosophy, curriculum, etc. for PYP and MYP;

sections on purpose, government, etc. for AdvancED). The educational leadership team, programme

coordinator, or school improvement coordinator must establish a timeline for internal review well ahead ofany deadlines for the submission of documentation, and the first step is an internal review by the

administrative team. The results of this process, along with the whole school review, inform department-

level and whole school improvement plans.

Whole School Self-Review by Committee

The educational leadership team, programme coordinator, or school improvement coordinator create

committees for whole school self-review. The number of committees is determined by the structure of

standards designated by the evaluation agency. Each committee is headed by a chairperson who selects other

members of her or his committee. The committee must consist of at least one of each of the following: a

classroom or core subject teacher of the programme (one each of PYP and MYP for the AdvancED

evaluation); an aide or non-core subject teacher of the programme; an administrator; support staff involved

in maintenance, technology support, or office administration; a student in the programme (one each of PYP



3/9




and MYP for the AdvancED evaluation); a parent of a student in the programme (one each of PYP and MYP

for the AdvancED evaluation); and a member of the governing board.

Goal Setting

The process of self-review provides the chairpersons with information about areas of the evaluation that

require attention. Chairpersons write summaries of committee findings. The educational leadership team,

programme coordinator, or school improvement coordinator use these findings as a basis for the creation of

goals that address areas that committees found require attention.

Department-Level / Whole School Improvement Plan

Goals determined from self-review committees and formulated by the educational leadership team,

programme coordinator, or school improvement coordinator are compiled to create a department-level or

whole school improvement plan. The format of the individual plan is designated by the evaluation agency

(and may additionally require a report), but the contents of this plan will take into consideration ongoing or

concurrent processes outlined in the plans created for the other two agencies. When each educational

leadership team, programme coordinator, or school improvement coordinator takes into consideration theactions implemented in plans created for the other two agencies, we ensure that there is greater

communication between departments, that actions are not repeated, and that all stakeholders continually

work to achieve the same goals.

Preparation

Each agency requires particular documentation in preparation for the visitation. Additionally, the

educational leadership team, programme coordinator, or school improvement coordinator examines the

progress of goal achievement and finalizes any ongoing processes.

Visitation

The educational leadership team, programme coordinator, or school improvement coordinator ensures thatthe evaluators are able to understand school growth with ease, ensuring that all stakeholders can take

necessary roles during the visitation, including the training of student ambassadors. There may also be a

need to train new teachers not yet comfortable with spontaneous observation. Any training is completed well

in advance of the visitation.

Transparent Review of Visitation and Evaluation

Each agency provides the educational leadership team, programme coordinator, or school improvement

coordinator with evaluation findings. These findings are shared with all stakeholders, and from these

findings, a special committee is created (unless the leadership team or coordinator has already created this

team) to review, update, and create new goals for the department-level or whole school improvement plan.

This review, update, and creation of new goals must consider the remaining two improvement plans as well.

Special Committee Review

The special committees created to review, update, and create new goals for the department-level or whole

school improvement plan conduct this process annually until it is once again time for administrative self-

review.

NWEA Measures of Academic Progress

The MAP is a computerized, adaptive assessment the school is able to align to the Common Core State

Standards a basis for school adopted standards. The detailed, swift feedback is used to inform instruction

that can take into consideration each students academic level and individual strengths.



4/9


5/9






6/9






7/9






8/9






9/9




This Ongoing Curriculum Review Process is based on research from the following sources. The majority of

the framework is based on the work of Gail Seay and her curriculum team at the American School of Doha.

American School of Doha: Strategically Speaking. (n.d.).American School of Doha. Retrieved April 15,

2013, from http://www.asd.edu.qa/page.cfm?p=943

Britton, M., Letassy, N., Medina, M., & Er, N. (2008). A Curriculum Review and Mapping Process

Supported by an Electronic Database System.American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education,

72(5), 1-6.

Carpenter, D., & Carpenter, M. (2009). All Aboard!. Learning & Leading with Technology, January, 18-23.

Curriculum and Instruction - Curriculum & Instruction Documents. (n.d.).Academy School District 20.

Retrieved April 15, 2013, from http://asd20.org/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?

sectiondetailid=12492&&PHPSESSID=ca4cf6eaf449f351525db37ca465ac6d

Dolence, M. (2004). The Curriculum-Centered Strategic Planning Model.Educause Center for Applied

Research Research Bulletin, 2004(10), 1-11.

http://asd20.org/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid=12492&&PHPSESSID=ca4cf6eaf449f351525db37ca465ac6dhttp://asd20.org/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid=12492&&PHPSESSID=ca4cf6eaf449f351525db37ca465ac6dhttp://asd20.org/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid=12492&&PHPSESSID=ca4cf6eaf449f351525db37ca465ac6dhttp://asd20.org/education/components/scrapbook/default.php?sectiondetailid=12492&&PHPSESSID=ca4cf6eaf449f351525db37ca465ac6d