Curriculum and Community Involvement 1

Curriculum and Community Involvement

Christine Anne McGrath

William Paterson University

Abstract

This paper explores the relationship between Curriculum Development and Community

Involvement. The resources used to support the paper include On Site Interview and District

Administrative Interviews with staff members who are directly, or indirectly, involved with the

curriculum development process. The questions asked range from general: What is Curriculum?

To the more specific: What Curriculum Model to you believe in? This paper also refers to

current journal articles on curriculum development and The Developing the Curriculum text

written by Peter F. Oliva and William R. Gordon, II. This paper will provide a definition of

curriculum, interpret the results of interviews with members of the educational community that

include two teachers and two district level administrators in different positions, briefly discuss

the fifth axiom as outlined by Oliva and Gordon, and finally gives the author’s perspective on the

curriculum development process.

Curriculum and Community Involvement

The curriculum development process in any school district is an immersive experiment in

what works and what does not work in the education of students. In any given year, districts are

revisiting, reevaluating and reassessing the curriculum in their districts to determine what works,

what does not, what needs to be kept and what needs to be changed. Establishing a new

curriculum is always a controversial undertaking and the committees involved can only hope that

their venture will be a successful one. Without the support of teachers, administrators, students,

parents, and community members a curriculum will never be successful.

But what is curriculum? Curriculum is the “perceived plan or program for all

experiences that the learner encounters in the direction of the school.” (Oliva and Gordan, 2013,

p. 7) The curriculum of any given institution can vary in its extent and scope. Curriculum may be

limited to what is taught in a classroom, what activities or experiments are conducted within a

subject area, and what material is covered when during the school year. Curriculum can also be

all inclusive, it can be a “school’s entire program of studies- and may be encountered inside or

outside the class or school.” (Oliva, et.al, 2013, p.7) The meaning of curriculum varies from

school to school, state to state, program to program. For some curriculum may merely

“conceived as the ‘what,’ or the ends.” (Oliva, et.al, 2013, p.7) Yet for others the definition of

curriculum may be more complicated and described as: “the totality of experiences of each

learner, stressing how subject matter is learned or the process of instruction.” (Lunenburg, Fred

C., 2011)

Curriculum is “considered to be everything that transpires in the course of planning,

teaching, and learning in an educational institution” (Tinsae, Esayas, 2016) It is the sum of the
Curriculum and Community Involvement 4

all of the planning, designing, learning, achievement, decisions, the teachers, the parents, the

school that results in the education of a child.

The philosophy of my school district regarding curriculum revolves around both our

vision statement: “to be a leader in educating New Jersey’s Urban Youth,” (Paterson Public

Schools Website) and our mission statement: “to prepare each student for success in the

college/university of their choosing and in their chosen career.” (Paterson Public Schools

Website.) The district has outlined a plan which calls for a curriculum that ensures that every

student will be successful in their future. This success can be in either a career or in the pursuit of

higher education. In the Strategic Plan for Paterson Public Schools 2014-2019, the district lists

four priorities ranging from “Effective Academic Programs, Healthy School Cultures, Family

and Community Engagement to Efficient and Responsive Operations.” (Paterson Public Schools

Strategic Plan) The new district superintendent has coined the phrase “Together, we can,” which

embraces the idea that it is not the sole responsibility of the teacher or the school to educate the

child, but the community. The emphasis on the third priority has been brought to the forefront. In

my school, and others in Paterson, we are tasked with the priority of more community led

committees, the development and establishment of PTO/PTA Committees, and the inclusion of

all members of the community in the education of the city’s youth. The new district
Curriculum and Community Involvement 5

administration has embraced the concept of community involvement in a letter to the Paterson

Community the district superintendent states: “Together, we can give our students experiences

that will broaden their minds, develop their abilities, and instill their confidence.” (Paterson

Public Schools Website)

Regarding curriculum design, planning and implementation the district regularly holds

sessions during summer months in which teachers are gathered together to revise, evaluate and

establish new curriculums. These committees consist of teachers who are viewed to be experts in

their field of instruction. These committees are overseen by the Content Supervisors. The variety

of teachers that are included in these sessions is limited and most times the same teachers are

selected every year to work on the district’s curriculum. Given the limited selection of the staff,

the wide variety of school cultures are not addressed in these curriculum planning sessions.

Ironically much of the work that is completed is never used and the activity seems for naught.

In preparing for this paper, I interviewed four people in various positions within my

district: One is a second year ESL Teacher, one is a veteran teacher with 20+ years’ experience,

one is a newly appointed math coach, and one is an experienced school administrator who has

served on various curriculum committees within the district. The results of the interviews were

interesting in the variety of responses received from six simple questions:

1. What is curriculum?

2. How do you think a district should design a curriculum? What factors should be taken

into consideration?

3. What curriculum model do you believe in?

4. How do you determine if the current curriculum is meeting the needs of our students?

5. Do the state standards help or harm the curriculum writing process?

6. Do you think teachers should be involved in the curriculum writing process?

The answers varied depending on the experience levels of the staff members and their positions.

The new ESL Teacher was the most thorough in the completion of the questionnaire. He refused

a face to face interview and responded electronically. His answer regarding the first question was

a text book answer and referenced “objectives…a clear continuum of skills taught…the logical

and sequential layout within a curriculum… the use of continuous and formative assessments.”

This new teacher supported the state standards but acknowledged that there are “a lot of skills

that are not included within them; resulting in teachers out lining their own set of standards.” In

contrast to the more seasoned teacher was brief and straight to the point, she accepted a face to

face interview, and who believed that the state standards “help the process because it provides

uniformity within the state. To some extent, all students across the state are learning the same

things. It is a good guide for the districts to build on.” Both staff members agreed that teachers

should be included in the curriculum writing process. The veteran teacher stated that “the role of

the teacher in the process is to help students develop an engaged relationship in with the content.

Active learning will increase, resulting in an exciting learning environment. Teachers have the

experience to know what works and what does not.” The ESL teacher also agreed that teachers

should be included in the process because “they have the firsthand experience about what actual

knowledge and skills the students are equipped with…. The teacher’s involvement will ensure

that suitable standards are created in the curriculum.”

On the district level, both administrators, The Math Coach and the Vice Principal (former

Language Arts Coach); agreed that teachers should NOT be involved in the curriculum writing

process. The math coach stated “that since our district closely mirrors the standards established

by the state there is no need to involve the teachers in the process. Teachers should follow the
Curriculum and Community Involvement 7

curriculum established by the district and teach the skills as prescribed. The Vice Principal

echoed the same sentiment stating: “the teachers are not as experienced as the upper level district

staff is, they do not possess the knowledge or the skills needed to write a curriculum; while they

can effectively execute a curriculum in their classroom instruction they can not write a

curriculum and should not be included in the process. We mirror the state standards so closely

that there is no need to include the teaching staff in the writing process.” Both administrators felt

that the state standards were a beneficial tool in curriculum development because, as stated by

the VP, “they ensure that all students in the state are being instructed in the same skills and

statewide there is a consistency in the instruction of students in regard to the skills taught.”

When asked about curriculum models the experienced teacher favored the Interlocking

Model because “it is the model she believes in and it clearly demonstrates an integrated

relationship between curriculum and instruction.” The ESL Teacher merely stated that he

preferred the cyclical model because of “the element of feedback,” further stating that “it is

important that instructional decisions be made after curriculum decisions.” Both administrators

interviewed for this paper agreed that the Concentric Model was the best model to use. The math

coach really did not have a reason for picking this model merely stating: “this is the one I believe

that works the best” The VP had a more substantive answer stating that “the Concentric Model is

the strongest because in this model you can not have instruction without curriculum or

curriculum without instruction. They are both of equal importance in the field of education and

instruction.”

Reflecting on these interviews, I would have to agree with the teachers that curriculum

development can not be done without the input of the teachers. Teachers have valuable

experience and knowledge that can be of great use in curriculum development. To exclude
Curriculum and Community Involvement 8

teachers from this process is a mistake and will surely affect the quality of the product. The view

of both the coach and the administrator is wrong and narrowed minded. They negate the positive

impact a teacher can have on curriculum development. Their refusal to acknowledge the

positivity a teacher can bring to such an endeavor is disheartening because it seems to support

the belief that the major problem in education today is the quality of the teacher in the classroom.

I also see the need for the standards and all of my interviewees are corrects in stating that

the standards are helpful in curriculum design. Having a starting point, established by the State

Department of Education, is helpful because it guides the team and ensures that all of the

necessary skills are being addressed. But these standards should not be the be all and end all in

education “rather are meant to support instead of dictating to teachers what and how they should

teach.”( Moeller, Aliedine Kramer, 2005)

As for educational models, I agree with the administrators on this point the Concentric

Model is the strongest because of the relationship between instruction and curriculum. To have

instruction without curriculum would be like having a steering wheel with no car. How can you

steer something that is not there? Instruction and curriculum both drive each other in the right

direction and are dependent on one another.

My district is a dynamic and ever-changing district. Somethings that have happened in

my seventeen years in this district have been disheartening. But the new district administration

seems to have some very positive intentions for the district and I only hope they follow through.

The district motto of “Together, we can,” supports what I believe should be the foundation of all

decisions made in a district, especially in curriculum development, I believe that all members of

the community should be involved in the development of curriculum. Everyone from the parents,

to community leaders, to administrative staff, to teachers, and even students have something of

value they can add to the process. If it takes a village to raise a child, should it not also take a

community to educate that child. The fifth of the ten axioms presented by Oliva and Gordan is

Cooperative Change. This axiom states “curriculum change is effected as a result of cooperative

endeavor on the part of groups.” (Oliva, et.al, 2013, p.28) All members of the community need to

be involved in curriculum development. Teachers and other district personal will serve as the

primary team members with students serving as the recipients and parents as the people most

concerned with the welfare of their children. (Oliva, et.al, 2013, p.28) As stated by Oliva and
Curriculum and Community Involvement 10

Gordan, “the more people affected by the change, and the greater its complexity and costs, the

greater the number of persons and groups that should be involved.” (Oliva, et.al, 2013, p.28)

Curriculum Development should be an activity in which all members of the community take an

active role. The more involved people are the more likely the acceptance, implementation and

success there will be for the curriculum initiated.

References

Lunenberg, F. (2011) Theorizing about Curriculum: Conceptions and Definitions. International

Journal of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity. Volume 13, Number 1. P. 1-5

Moeller, A.K. “Optimizing Student Success: Focused Curriculum, Meaningful Assessment, and

Effective Instruction.” (2005) Faculty Publications: Department of Teaching, Learning and

Teacher Education. University of Nebraska. 173

Oliva, P & Gordan, II, W (2013) Developing the Curriculum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson

Education Inc.

Tinsae, E. (2016). A Critical Review and Analysis of the Definitions of Curriculum and the

Relationship between Curriculum and Instruction. International Journal of Research in

Engineering and Social Sciences. Volume 6 Issue 4. P. 8-12