Connecticut Standards Alignment: Preschool Curriculum .

2y ago
26 Views
2 Downloads
2.05 MB
133 Pages
Last View : Today
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Aarya Seiber
Transcription

Connecticut Standards Alignment:Preschool Curriculum Framework, KindergartenScience Curriculum Standards, and KindergartenSocial Studies Curriculum FrameworkFinal ReportSRI Project Number: P21094Prepared by:Kathleen Hebbeler, Ph.D.Cornelia Taylor, Ph.D.May 30, 2012333 Ravenswood Avenue Menlo Park, California 94025-3493 650.859.2000 www.sri.com

ContentsExecutive Summary . vFindings . vRecommendations . viiChapter 1. Introduction .Questions Addressed by the Alignment Study .Methodology .Contents of the Report .1125Chapter 2. Preschool Curriculum Framework . 7Appropriateness and Content . 7Alignment of the Preschool Curriculum Framework with the Guidelines for theDevelopment of Infant and Toddler Early Learning . 12Chapter 3. Kindergarten Science Curriculum Standards .Appropriateness and Content .Alignment of the Kindergarten Science Curriculum Standards with the PrekindergartenScience Curriculum Standards .Alignment of the Kindergarten Science Curriculum Standards with the PreschoolCurriculum Framework .Chapter 4. Kindergarten Social Studies Curriculum Framework .Appropriateness and Content .Alignment of the Kindergarten Social Studies Curriculum Framework with thePrekindergarten Social Studies Curriculum Standards .Alignment of the Kindergarten Social Studies Curriculum Framework with thePreschool Curriculum Framework .1515161921212222Chapter 5. Summary and Recommendations . 27References . 33i

Appendix A. MethodologyConnecticut Early Childhood Alignment Institute (Training Slides) .Agenda for Connecticut Alignment Institute .Basic Codes .Companion Objectives:Infant Toddler Guidelines .PreKindergarten Social Studies .PreKindergarten Science.Preschool Curriculum Framework .Content Codes:Science Content Codes .Preschool Content Codes.A-1A-11A-13A-14A-16A-18A-19A-25A-26Appendix B. Additional Tables for Chapters 2, 3, and 4Appendix C. Evaluation FindingsTablesTable 1.1Table 2.1Table 2.2Table 2.3Table 3.1Table 3.2Table 3.3Table 3.4Table 4.1Table 4.2Table 4.3Agreement Criteria for Inclusion in Findings .Preschool Curriculum Framework: Number of Content Standards andPerformance Indicators by Domain .Content Areas Addressed in the Preschool Curriculum Framework .Preschool Curriculum Framework: Alignment to the Guidelines for theDevelopment of Infant and Toddler Early Learning .Kindergarten Science Curriculum Standards: Number of Grade-LevelConcepts and Grade-Level Expectations for Each Standard .Content Areas Addressed in the Kindergarten Science Curriculum StandardsKindergarten Science Curriculum Standards: Alignment to thePrekindergarten Science Curriculum Standards .Kindergarten Science Curriculum Standards: Alignment to the PreschoolCurriculum Framework .Kindergarten Social Studies Curriculum Framework: Number of Strandsand Grade-Level Expectations for Each Standard .Content Areas Addressed in the Kindergarten Social Studies CurriculumFramework .Kindergarten Social Studies Curriculum Framework: Alignment to thePrekindergarten Social Studies Curriculum Framework .ii4791315171820212324

Tables (concluded)Table 4.4Table 5.1Kindergarten Social Studies Curriculum Framework: Alignment to thePreschool Curriculum Framework . 25Overall Results of the Alignment Study . 28Appendix BTable B-2.1 Preschool Curriculum Framework: Content Areas of Target Objectives .Table B-2.2 Preschool Curriculum Framework to Guidelines for the Developmentof Infant and Toddler Early Learning Alignment: Aligned Objectives .Table B-3.1 Kindergarten Science Curriculum Standards: Content Areas of TargetObjectives .Table B-3.2 Kindergarten Science Curriculum Standards to Prekindergarten ScienceCurriculum Standards: Aligned Objectives .Table B-3.3 Kindergarten Science Curriculum Standards to Preschool CurriculumFramework: Aligned Objectives .Table B-4.1 Kindergarten Social Studies Curriculum Framework: Content Areas ofTarget Objectives .Table B-4.2 Kindergarten Social Studies Curriculum Framework to PrekindergartenSocial Studies: Aligned Objectives .Table B-4.3 Kindergarten Social Studies Curriculum Framework to Preschool CurriculumFramework: Aligned Objectives .B-1B-10B-21B-25B-34B-44B-45B-49Appendix CTable C-1Evaluation Findings . C-1iii

iv

Executive SummarySpecifying what children are expected to know and do is widely recognized as a criticalcomponent of an effective educational system. Equally important is that these expectations form analigned learning progression from one year to the next, including the age span from birth tokindergarten. Connecticut commissioned a studyto examine the content and alignment of severalof the state’s standards for young children. Thestudy looked at the alignment between thePreschool Curriculum Framework, theKindergarten Science Curriculum Standards, andthe Kindergarten Social Studies CurriculumFramework and standards for younger children.To examine the content and alignment of thevarious sets of standards, 28 knowledgeableearly childhood and kindergarten professionalsfrom around the state met for 2 days. After beingtrained in the rating system, the participantscoded the grade-level appropriateness and the content of the most specific statements ofexpectations in the standards document. The study referred to these as “objectives.” For eachobjective, participants identified whether there was a corresponding objective in the standards foryounger children, and, if so, rated the nature, relative difficulty, and clarity of the linkage. The reviewof standards was conducted first by pairs and then in teams of five or six. The teams were given theresults of the pair work for use in their decision-making. Findings were based on team ratings withthe exception of the content analysis findings, which were based on the work of the pairs.FindingsNearly all of the objectives were judged to be grade-level appropriate. Content analysis wascompleted by pairs of raters who selected up to four codes to describe the content of each objectivein the standards. The findings for each standards document were as follows: Preschool Curriculum Framework. A total of 143 content codes were assigned across the77 objectives, suggesting the raters saw multiple content areas in the objectives. The contentareas with the strongest coverage across the objectives were social-emotional development,language development, and physical development, which correspond to major areas in thePreschool Curriculum Framework. Within each content area, some subareas received morecoverage than others.v

Kindergarten Science Curriculum Standards. A total of 82 codes were assigned across the54 objectives. The science objectives were dispersed across the content areas. The contentareas with the strongest coverage across the objectives were life science, followed by earthand space science. Only one objective addressed science and technology, and noneaddressed history of science. Within each content area, one of the subareas received morecoverage than the others. Kindergarten Social Studies Curriculum Framework. A total of 66 codes were assignedacross the 31 objectives. The content area with the strongest coverage across the objectiveswas learning and innovation skills, followed by information, media, and technology skills.Within learning and innovation skills, most of the objectives addressed critical thinking andproblem solving. The content of the objectives addressing information, media, and technologywas fairly evenly split across the three subareas.Alignment was examined by identifying objectives in the standards for younger children thataddressed content similar to each objective in the standards for older children. The percentage ofobjectives in the standards for older children with related objectives in the standards for youngerchildren varied considerably across the three standards documents and by the set of comparisonstandards for younger children: 97% of the objectives in the Kindergarten Social Studies Curriculum Framework had acorresponding objective in the PreKindergarten Social Studies Curriculum Framework; 83% of the objectives in the Kindergarten Science Curriculum Standards had a correspondingobjective in the PreKindergarten Science Curriculum Standards; 54% of the objectives in the Kindergarten Science Curriculum Standards had a correspondingobjective in the Preschool Curriculum Framework; 53% of the objectives in the Kindergarten Social Studies Curriculum Framework had acorresponding objective in the Preschool Curriculum Framework; and 49% of the objectives in the Preschool Curriculum Framework had a corresponding objectivein the 24- to 36-month Guidelines for the Development of Infant and Toddler Early Learning.There was a clear linkage between most of the objectives judged to be aligned across the two sets ofstandards with the exception of the comparison between the Kindergarten Social Studies CurriculumFramework and Preschool Curriculum Framework. For this comparison, only 53% of objectives werealigned and of those, only half were judged a clear linkage. Finally, for all of the comparisons, most ofthe aligned objectives in each set of standards for the older children were considered more difficultthan the corresponding objectives in each set of standards for the younger children.vi

RecommendationsTo assist the state in its work toward a revised set of standards, the following recommendationsare made with regard to the content and alignment issues addressed by this study: Develop a single categorization structure including labeling conventions that can be applied tostandards documents across the entire birth through kindergarten span. This categorizationsystem does not need to have identical main and subcategories at every age or grade levelbut it does need to show the relationship between categories at each age group. Theuniqueness of the different age groups and the academic subject areas must beacknowledged and addressed appropriately, but uniqueness can be addressed within acohesive structure. Approach revisions to any of the standards documents with a comprehensive framework forcontent analysis and continually map back to that framework. The content codes used in thisstudy are examples of such frameworks, but other frameworks that address essential contentareas also would be suitable. As decisions are made about what content to include or exclude and at what depth,repeatedly check to ensure that the resulting distribution of standards matches the state’svision of what children should know and do. For young children, that vision should be informedby the literature on the recommended content of early childhood standards. To the extent possible, develop or revise standards for adjacent age groups at the same time.Iteratively map the content from one age or grade level to the next, making intentionaldecisions about the connections across the age or grade levels. Good vertical alignment doesnot require that every objective have a parallel objective at the higher or lower age/gradelevel, but the foundations for all of the standards for older children should exist in theobjectives for the younger children. Objectives for younger children might not have relatedobjectives for older children when development in an objective is considered completed,requiring no further attention in later years. Developing separate objectives for three-year-oldsand four-year-olds and gearing the objectives for the end of each age period will make iteasier to construct and validate a smooth progression from one year to the next.vii

Chapter 1. IntroductionThe state of Connecticut conducted a series of activities to examine alignment between setsof standards developed for children in kindergarten and younger. The state contracted with SRIInternational to examine the vertical alignment across five pairs of standards, including thefollowing: The Preschool Curriculum Framework with the Guidelines for the Development of Infantand Toddler Early Learning The Kindergarten Science Curriculum Standards with the Prekindergarten ScienceCurriculum Standards and the Preschool Curriculum Framework The Kindergarten Social Studies Curriculum Framework with the Prekindergarten SocialStudies Curriculum Framework and the Preschool Curriculum Framework.This report describes the process that was used to examine alignment and what was learnedthrough the process.Questions Addressed by the Alignment StudyMartone and Sireci (2009) define alignment as the “means of understanding the degree towhich different components of an educational system work together to support a common goal”(p. 1355). Referring specifically to assessment and standards, Webb (2002) noted thatalignment refers to the “degree to which expectations and assessments are in agreement andserve in conjunction with one another to guide the system toward students learning what theyare expected to know and do” (p. 1). Discussions of standards and alignment refer to two kindsof alignment: vertical and horizontal. Vertical alignment refers to the alignment of standards fromone age year or grade level to the next and horizontal alignment refers to alignment acrossstandards, assessment, curriculum, and instruction within an age or grade level. The goal is tohave a system with both vertical and horizontal alignment, with standards aligning smoothlyfrom one year to the next and with key components within a year aligned with each other. Thefindings in this report address activities undertaken to examine vertical alignment across severalsets of standards.Key concepts in examining standards are the breadth and depth of the standards, wherebreadth refers to the number of different topics covered and depth refers to the emphasis orintensity with which each topic is addressed. Studies that look across standards examine howdifferent sets of standards compare relative to breadth and depth. Another important concept inalignment studies is the cognitive demand or cognitive complexity of the standards. Forexample, recalling information is less cognitively demanding than being asked to apply it.Alignment requires matching on both content and cognitive complexity; or, in the case ofalignment across grade levels, good alignment requires an appropriate level of increase incognitive demand.A critical consideration for any effort looking at alignment across grade levels is thedevelopmental or learning progression embedded in the performance indicators (or grade-levelexpectations). Obviously, it is important that the indicators at higher ages or grade levels bemore cognitively challenging than those at younger ages or lower levels, but it also is important1

that the sequencing be smooth, with the learning progression showing reasonable expectationsfor growth from one year to the next. Furthermore, for young children, it is critical that theplacement of the indicators be developmentally appropriate at each age or grade level. Failureto attend to sequencing and developmental appropriateness has led to critiques of standardsthat push academic content into the preschool years because the standards for K–12 havealready been determined and the only option for early childhood is how to build downward fromthem (e.g., Meisels, 2011).One challenge in looking across standards documents is that the documents are organizedinto a different number of levels and use different names for those levels. For example, theConnecticut Preschool Framework uses Domains, Content Standards, and PerformanceStandards (Indicators), whereas the Science Curriculum Standards use Grade-Level Conceptsand Grade-Level Expectations. For the alignment study, the finest level within the documentwas the focus. For ease of discussion, these are referred to as “objectives,” regardless of howthey are labeled in the document. Also, for ease of discussion, the objectives for the olderage/grade level in each pairing was referred to as the “target” and the objectives from theyounger age/grade level was described as the “companion” objectives.The alignment study was focused on three sets of “target” documents: the PreschoolCurriculum Framework, the Kindergarten Science Curriculum Standards, and the KindergartenSocial Studies Curriculum Framework. The following questions were addressed for each of thedocuments.Content of the standards: What is the content of the target objectives? Is the target objective developmentally appropriate for the age/grade level? What are the breadth and depth of the content in each document and how do thesecompare across documents?Articulation across ages and grades (vertical alignment): Is there an objective in the companion set that addresses content similar to that in thetarget document? If yes, what is the nature of the linkage? Is the objective at the higher age or grade-level topic more cognitively complex than theobjective at the lower age/grade level? Where are the gaps and inconsistencies across each pair of standards?MethodologyThe study questions were answered by convening a two-day alignment institute attended by28 experienced Connecticut early childhood professionals including infant toddler specialists,preschool and kindergarten teachers, and early childhood curriculum specialists. The groupaveraged over 13 years of experience working with children birth through 5 years, with a rangeof 1 to 36 years of experience. More specifically, 61% reported experience with the birth-tothree age group, 93% reported experience with 3 to 5 year olds, and 50% reported experiencewith kindergarten.2

All participants were trained in the alignment methodology on the morning of the first day ofthe institute. The training addressed the following topics: the purpose of the institute; definitionsof key terms; overview of the alignment process; instructions on each of the alignment itemsand the codes to be used in the process; and practice using the codes. Slides from the traininginstitute are included in Appendix A. For the remainder of the institute, the participants appliedthe process to 5 sets of comparisons: Kindergarten Science Curriculum Standards compared to Prekindergarten ScienceCurriculum Standards Kindergarten Science Curriculum Standards compared to Preschool CurriculumFramework Kindergarten Social Studies Curriculum Framework compared to Prekindergarten SocialStudies Curriculum Framework Kindergarten Social Studies Curriculum Framework compared to Preschool CurriculumFramework Preschool Curriculum Framework compared to the Guidelines for the Development ofInfant Toddler Early LearningThe first document, the standards for the older children, was referred to as the target documentand the second was the companion document.A two-step process was used to examine the alignment between the target and companiondocuments. For the first step, the 28 participants worked in 14 pairs with pair assignmentsdeveloped by research team. The pairs worked independently to complete all of the alignmentitems for the target documents. In the second step, the participants were divided into 6 teams.The teams were given the results fromthe 14 pairs and independentlycompleted the same alignment items.The only differences between steps 1and 2 were: (1) step 1 was competed inpairs and the work for step 2 wascompleted in teams, and (2) the teamshad available to them how the pairs hadcoded each of the alignment items. Allpairs rated the Social StudiesCurriculum Framework objectives butonly half the pairs rated the other twotarget documents (PreschoolCurriculum Framework andKindergarten Science Curriculum Standards). The pair assignments for these comparisons wereconstructed to include individuals with expertise in the relevant age group. All teams reviewedall of the standards. Teams were constructed by the research team so that each team includedexpertise across the birth to five age span.For each of the five comparisons between target and companion documents, the pairs andteams were asked to look at each target objective and make decisions about the content of the3

target objective1, the developmental appropriateness of the target objective, and the relationshipof the target objective to the objectives the companion document. They recorded their decisionsin an Excel spreadsheet. Decisions that related only to the target objectives, which were thedevelopmental appropriateness of the target objective and the content of the target objective,were addressed only once for each target document.For each target objective, pairs and teams decided if any objective in the companiondocument addressed content related to the target objective. If they did not find any objective inthe companion document that addressed content related to the target objective, they proceededto the next target objective. If they found an objective in the companion set that addressedcontent related to the target objective, they rated the quality of the content linkage, the nature ofthe content linkage, and the relative difficulty of the target compared to the companion(Appendix A contains more information about these items. See “Basic Codes,” page A-13).As the alignment institute progressed, it became clear that the teams would not be able towork through all of the standards in the allotted time. A few adjustments were made to maximizethe data available such as asking the some teams to work from the back to the front of thetarget objectives. Teams worked through the comparisons at their own pace and some teamswere not able to finish by the end of the second day. In the comparison of the KindergartenScience Framework to Preschool Curriculum Framework, some teams did not finish all of thekindergarten objectives and one team did not finish any. For the comparison of the PreschoolCurriculum Framework to the Infant Toddler Foundations, one team did not complete the ratingsfor the nature, clarity and difficulty of the alignment.With the exception of the content analyses, all findings in this report are based on theresponses given by the teams. Only responses with a high degree of agreement across teamsare reported to ensure that the findings represent strong agreement. Table 1.1 summarizes thecriteria used for agreement for each of the items. If criteria for agreement were not met, the dataare reported as “Consensus not reached.” When there were not enough teams that rated theitem, the data are reported as “Not enough ratings” which was a rare occurrence. Slightlydifferent standards for agreement were adopted for the two comparisons that were not rated bythe full contingent of teams.An evaluation conducted at the end of the two days showed that the participants believedthey were well trained (average rating of 3.3 out of 4) and found it easy to work in pairs (3.3 outof 4) and teams (3.4 out of 4). With one exception, they reported being comfortable with each ofthe items they were asked to code. All ratings were 3.0 or higher out of 4 except for the natureof the linkage between the target and the companion which was rated 2.4. Appendix C containsmore information about the evaluation findings. Despite their discomfort with this code, therewere very few instances for this or any of the items, where the majority of the teams did notindependently reach the same decision.1Due to limited time, decisions about content were only made by the pairs.4

Table 1.1 Agreement Criteria for Inclusion in FindingsNumber that needed to agree on the sameresponseItemContent2 or more pairsAppropriateness for age/grade4 or more of 6 teamsCompanion objective with similar content3 or more out of 5 teams*4 or more of 6 teams3 out of 3***Clarity, nature of linkage, relative difficulty fortarget objectives with an identified companion**3 or more out of 43 or more out or 54 or more out of 6*Only applies to the Kindergarten Science standards compared to Preschool Curriculum Framework where not allteams were able to finish.** These items were analyzed when there was a companion objective selected by 4 or more teams so the number ofteams ranged from 4 to 6 for these items.*** Only applies to Kindergarten Science compared to Preschool Curriculum Framework and Preschool CurriculumFramework compared to Infant Toddler Guidelines where not all teams were able to finish.Contents of the ReportFour chapters follow this introductory chapter. Chapter 2 addresses the PreschoolCurriculum Framework and presents the results of aligning the Preschool CurriculumFramework with the Guidelines for the Development of Infant and Toddler Early Learning.Chapter 3 presents the findings for the alignment of the Kindergarten Science CurriculumStandards with the Prekindergarten Science Curriculum Standards and with the PreschoolCurriculum Framework. Chapter 4 presents the findings for aligning the Kindergarten SocialStudies Framework with the Prekindergarten Social Studies Framework and the PreschoolCurriculum Framework. The last chapter, Chapter 5, summarizes the findings across the fivecomparisons and presents recommendations. The appendices provide supplemental materialincluding additional details about the methodology and the materials from the institute(Appendix A), supplemental tables showing the findings reported in chapters 2 through 4 foreach objective (Appendix B) and additional findings from the evaluation of the institute(Appendix C).5

6

Chapter 2. Preschool Curriculum FrameworkThe Preschool Curriculum Framework addresses four domains of development: personaland social development, physical development, cognitive development (which has twosubdomains), and creative expression/aesthetic development. Within the domains, there arecontent standards and performance indicators. The introduction to the framework notes thatthere is interdependence among the domains and that the content standards and performanceindicators reflect the overlap across the domains. Table 2.1 presents the number of contentstandards and performance indicators for each domain.Table 2.1 Preschool Curriculum Framework: Number of Content Standards andPerformance Indicators by l and social development720Physical development512Logical and mathematical thinking319Language and literacy4155112477DomainCognitive developmentCreative expression/aesthetic developmentTotal NumberThe alignment study focu

May 30, 2012 · Curriculum Standards and the Preschool Curriculum Framework The Kindergarten Social Studies Curriculum Framework with the Prekindergarten Social Studies Curriculum Framework and the Preschool Curriculum Framework. This report describes the process that was used to ex

Related Documents:

a public service by the Connecticut Tree Protective Association. Contact information on Connecticut Licensed Arborists who are CTPA members may be found on the CTPA Website. Arborists Businesses registered with the State of Connecticut may be found on CTPA's Go To The Top web page. Connecticut Licensed Arborists

Curriculum Alignment Table Early Childhood Curriculum Project Q & A ME No Maine does not maintain a list, but does feature questions to ask when considering curriculum with a link to the preschool curriculum research studies on the IES-What Works Website. (2014) Per Preschool Program Standards, the curriculum must be aligned with the

Alignment of The HighScope Curriculum and COR Advantage . With . Colorado Academic Standards for Preschool . This document aligns the content in the Colorado Academic Standards for Preschool with thelearning objectives of the HighScope Curriculum for preschool and the developmental milestones of HighScope's child assessment tool, COR Advantage. Based on more than 50 years of research on .

The Creative Curriculum for Preschool (5th ed.) HighScope Preschool Curriculum Developmental Learning Materials Opening the World of Learning (OWL) The Scholastic Curriculum for Family Child Care (2nd ed.) . The Preschool Promise Program Provider manual is currently under revision for the 20-21 program year. Applicants should

State of Connecticut . English Language Proficiency (CELP) Standards. with Correspondences to K–12 English Language Arts (ELA), Mathematics, Connecticut C3 Social Studies, and Science Connecticut Core Practices, K–12 English Language Arts Connecticut Core Standards (CCS),

Starmount Preschool accepts children without regard to race, color, creed, and national/ethnic origin. Statement of Purpose The Preschool is a ministry of Starmount Presbyterian Church, under the direction of the Preschool Committee. It seeks to provide child care and a preschool for f

Stepping Stones Christian Preschool Preschool Directors- Carrie Baxter & Al Rogers 2021 Staff- Mikki Champion, Martha Cooper, Charlotte Narmore, Joy Perkins Johnson, Tricia Quick, Machelle VanReenen, Katie Velez & Jamie Wulf 720 Kings Lane Tullahoma, Tennessee 37388 Church Phone- 455-8513 Email- steppingstones@hhcoc.org Preschool Handbook

paper no.1( 2 cm x 5 cm x 0.3 mm ) and allowed to dry sera samples at 1: 500 dilution and their corresponding at room temperature away from direct sun light after filter paper extracts at two-fold serial dilutions ranging that stored in screw-capped air tight vessels at – 200C from 1: 2 up to 1: 256.