professor william allan kritsonis-curriculum issues ppt

8/20/2019 Professor William Allan Kritsonis-Curriculum Issues Ppt

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/professor-william-allan-kritsonis-curriculum-issues-ppt 1/28



THE RE%UIRE$CURRICULUM

Since the early 1980s, a host of measures havebeen put in place to strengthen the curriculum,measure student achievement, and hold schooldistricts and schools accountable.

Texas passed legislation in 1981 requiring a balancebeteen foundation curriculum !core sub"ects# andenrichment curriculum !T$% &&'8.001(.00'# based

on the Texas $ssential )noledge and S*ills !T$)S#. The state board can specify the content of the

required curriculum, but it cannot designate eitherthe methodology or the amount of time to be usedin teaching it.



THE RE%UIRE$CURRICULUM &co!t'(

The State +oard of $ducation !S+$# must !T$% &&'8.00',

&&'8.0'-!b#, &&'8.0-#/

adopt curriculum requirements for minimum,recommended, and advanced high school programs,

ensure that students enroll in recommended or advancedith some exceptions

require school districts to develop advanced placementtests give a one(time 000 grant to schools oering 23

courses aard incentive grants to teachers subsidi4e test fees for needy students



THE RE%UIRE$CURRICULUM &co!t'(

5egislation enacted in '00 permitted T$2 !T$%

&&'.1-1, '9.909# to establish a three year technology immersion pilot, to allo districts to participate in electronic courses and

virtual learning T$% &'8.006 requires districts to establish a local

health education advisory council to assist in ensuring

that local community values and health concerns arere7ected in the districts human sexuality course. T$% &'9.08- authori4es public school districts to oer

an integrated program of educational and supportservices for students ho are pregnant or ho areparents.



STU$ENT ASSESSMENT&co!t'( :n 199;, the <exican 2merican 5egal =efense and

$ducation >und !<25=$># led a federal lasuit againstthe states former exit test, T22S, arguing that it asdiscriminatory against ?ispanics and +lac*s ho failedat higher rate. :n '000, the @. S. =istrict %ourt re"ectedthe lasuit by noting that the test provided morepositive than negative outcomes (GI Forum Image deTejas v. Texas Education Agency).

The 1999 legislative session produced T$% &'8.0'1hich stipulated that students may be promoted only onthe basis of academic achievement. :n addition, T$%&'8.0'11 specied the circumstances under hich astudent can be retained for failure to pass stateassessment tests.



STU$ENT ASSESSMENT&co!t'( 2ccording to T$% &&'8.0'11!c#, '8.0'1, and '9.081,

after a student fails the T22S for a second time, a gradeplacement committee ill be established to determinehat instruction the district should provide the studentbefore administering the test a third time

Students not li*ely to be promoted to the next grade arerequired to attend an extended(year program, anaccelerated reading program, an accelerated

instructional program, or a basic s*ills program !T$%&'-.08-#.

>urther, a district must develop a personal graduationplan for each middle school or high school student hodoes not perform ell on the state assessment or is notli*ely to graduate on time !T$% &'8.0'1'#.



STU$ENT ASSESSMENT&co!t'(

2 student may receive a diploma hen the studentcompletes the required curriculum and the exit(level assessment. :f a student fails the stateassessment requirement, they may be aarded acertifcate o courseor! completion !%#.

2ccording to T$% &1.106, a district may not

ithhold a diploma or deny a student theopportunity of graduating or participating ingraduation exercised for failure to return boo*s orpay the price of the boo*.



STU$ENT ASSESSMENT&co!t'( ne of the appraisal criteria of teachers and school

principals must encompass the performance of thestudents !T$% &'1.-1, '1.-6!e##. :n "c#ean v. $uana%I.&.'. the commissioner of education observed thatsignicant lac* of student progress can be a reason fornonreneal, hoever the district did not have suAcientevidence of teacher incompetence to support thenonreneal, and the commissioner reversed the

districts nonreneal decision. 2 teacher cannot be required to change a students

grade on a course or exam, unless the board of trusteesdetermines the grade is arbitrary, erroneous, or notconsistent ith the school districts grading policy !T$%&'8.0'1'#.



SCHOOL $ISTRICTACCOUNTABILITY T$% &9.0-1 directs the S+$ to establish a set of

academic excellence indicators for school campuses. T$% &11.'-!c#, requires that school principals must

consult annually ith their site(based planning anddecision(ma*ing committee in revieing and revisingthe campus improvement plan relative to performanceof the campus on the academic excellence indicators.

$ach year, T$2 prepares a Bcampus report cardC thatcompares the performance of the campus to othercampuses around the state. School boards are requiredto publish an annual report describing the educationalperformance of the district and each of its campuses onstudent achievement and other measures !T$%&&9.0-', 9.0-#.



SCHOOL $ISTRICTACCOUNTABILITY

&co!t'( School districts and individual schools are held

accountable to the T$2 through the accreditationprocess ith classications of exemplary,recogni4ed, academically acceptable, andacademically unacceptable !T$% &&9.11!a##.

Sanctions for lo(performing campuses can

include appointment of a campus interventionteam to render assistance, selection of a board ofmanagers, and reconstitution or closure of thecampus if the school has been decient for to ormore years !T$% &&9.1'#.



NO CHIL$ LE)T BEHIN$&co!t'( $ach states denition of 2H3 must apply Bthe same

high standards of academic achievement to all publicelementary and secondary school students in theStateC. This means that all subgroups must meetstandard and states must disaggregate the data tosho 2H3 of each subgroup !'0 @.S.%. &G11!b#!'#!%#!1#!-# et seq.#.

:f a school fails to ma*e 2H3 for to consecutive years,

then a school enters Bschool improvementC and allstudents have Bpublic school choiceC !6 %.>.I.&'00.'#. Schools enter Bsupplemental educationalservicesC in the third year, Bcorrective actionC for thefourth year, BrestructuringC for the fth year !6 %.>.I.&&'00.6', '00.6, '00.6-#.



REMO*AL O)OB+ECTIONABLE LIBRARY

AN$ STU$Y MATERIALS The removal of ob"ectionable material as

addressed in a mur*y -(6 decision by [email protected]. Supreme %ourt hen it aArmed a loercourt decision ordering a trial to determinehy a school board removed controversialboo*s from the libraries (oard o Education

o Island Trees v. ico). Since the ma"ority of the court as notconsistent in its reasoning, no denite set ofguidelines can be derived from the decision.



REMO*AL O)OB+ECTIONABLE LIBRARY

AN$ STU$Y MATERIALS

&co!t'( The @.S. %ourt of appeals for the >ifth %ircuit had an

opportunity in 199- to apply the 3ico ruling to a5ouisiana school districts removal of a controversialboo* *oodoo +oodoo (,amp-ell v. &t. Tammanyaris% &c%ool oard).

The board voted to remove the boo* from all schoollibraries, but a lasuit as led by other parents

ho ob"ected to the removal. The >ifth %ircuit sent the case bac* to the loercourts for a determination of hat motivated theschool boards action, expecially considering thatmany of the members either had not read the boo*or had read less than its entirety.



COMPUTERS AN$ THEINTERNET The federal %hildrens :nternet 3rotection 2ct !%:32#

required both libraries and schools using federal$lementary and Secondary $ducation 2ct funds for:nternet use to have ltering devices in place by July,'00'.

The 2merican 5ibrary 2ssociation led a lasuit against%:32, charging that it unconstitutionally censorsacademic material.

The @.S. Supreme %ourt upheld the statute asconstitutional (American #i-rary Association v. .&./0112) since the governmental interest in protectingchildren from harmful materials as great, and theburden on adult library uses having their use lteredas minimal.



COMPUTERS AN$ THEINTERNET &co!t'(

Schools need to be careful hen postingpersonally identiable information aboutstudents that ould violate the terms of the>amily $ducational Iights and 3rivacy 2ct.

School districts use Bacceptable use

policiesC to place restrictions on the use ofits on technology and to impose sanctionson those ho violate the conditions of the!$lectronics %ommunications 2ct !18 @.S.%.&&'-10('-'0##.



E,TRACURRICULARACTI*ITIES AN$ THE UIL

&co!t'( 2 7urry of litigation greeted the

implementation of the original Bno pass(noplayC rule in 1986.

The Texas Supreme %ourt ruled in 198- thatthe la does not deprive students of anyrecogni4ed right to participate in

extracurricular activities and is notdiscriminatory (&pring ranc% I.&.'. v.&tamos)/ and as re"ected again by thestate appeals court in 1991 (TexasEducation Agency. v. &tamos).



AT-RIS" CHIL$REN

To reduce the dropout rate, the commissioner of

education is required to develop a process forauditing school dropout records electronically andadminister a Bmiddle collegeC education pilotprogram for students ho are at ris* of droppingout !T$% &&9.0--, '9.908#.

$ducation %ode &&.1-1(.1-8 outlines theB%ommunities in SchoolsC program, a youthdropout prevention program, and ho thosereceiving funds under T$% &.1-G mustparticipate in the program.



AT-RIS" CHIL$REN&co!t'(

T$% &'9.081 requires each district todevelop appropriate compensatory oraccelerated programs for students hoare not performing ell.

=istricts may operate an extended(yearprogram for students in *indergarten

through grade eight ho are identied asunli*ely to be promoted to the next grade!T$% &'9.08'# or an optional 7exible yearprogram !T$% &'9.08'1#.



BILIN.UAL CHIL$REN

:n 19;6, the @.S. Supreme %ourt decided in 5au v.

Dichols that federal guidelines enforcing Title K: ofthe 19G6 %ivil Iights 2ct did require school districtsto eliminate language deciencies here schoolboard policies discriminate against minorities.

The case involved %hinese students ho ere not

receiving any instruction in learning $nglish, yetere enrolled in all($nglish classes. The %ourt decided that the district as required to

ta*e aArmative steps to rectify the languagedeciencies.



BILIN.UAL CHIL$REN&co!t'( The problem is that the %ourt did not specify exactly

hat form bilingual programs are to have in order tocomply ith the 19G6 act. 2s a result of nited &tates v. Texas 3ilingual4/

Subchapter + of %hapter '9 of the Texas $ducation %odeset forth the la ith respect to bilingual education.

These provisions ere originally adopted in 19;, andrevised substantially in 1981. T$% &'9.0-1 asserts that

$nglish is the primary language of Texas, but did requireschool districts ith tenty or more students of limited$nglish prociency !5$3# in the same grade to oerbilingual education throughout middle school, and$nglish as a second language !$S5# in high school.



.I)TE$ CHIL$REN

2 gifted and talented student is dened as one Bho

performs at or shos the potential for performing at aremar*ably high level of accomplishment hencompared to others of the same age, experience, orenvironment and Bho exhibits high performancecapability in an intellectual, creative, or artistic eldLpossesses an unusual capacity for leadership, orexcels in a specic academic eldC !T$% &'9.1'1#.

@sing the criteria developed by the S+$, eachdistrict is required to adopt a process for identifyinggifted and talented students and to establish aprogram for those students in each grade level.



ABUSE$ AN$NE.LECTE$ CHIL$REN 3rovisions of the >amily %ode require that anyone

having cause to believe that a childs physical ormental health or elfare has been or may beadversely aected by abuse or neglect shallimmediately ma*e a report to any local or state laenforcement agency or any other appropriate agency!>amily %ode &&'G1.101, 'G1.10#. Section 'G1.109 ofthe >amily %ode ma*es failure to report suspected

child abuse or neglect a %lass + misdemeanor. 2nappeals court in "orris v. &tate/ 199', and thecommissioner in Texas Education Agency v. "orris,1996, felt that since the teacher did not report theabuse by the to aides, she should be convicted andhave her teaching certicate revo*ed.



HOMESCHOOLIN.

ne thing the chapter did not discuss ashomeschooling.

Fhether or not homeschooling asconsidered a viable option as settle in 1996hen the Texas Supreme %ourt ruled in#eeper v. Arlington that home schools are

private schools. 3rivate schools are not regulated by the state

of Texas at this time and so parents did nothave to present their curriculum to the schooldistrict andMor register ith school oAcials.



HOMESCHOOLIN.

The court in that case ruled that school districts are still

required to enforce the compulsory attendance lasand that parents ho are teaching their children athome must cooperate ith the school district in suchinquires.

:n 199-, the Texas $ducation 2gency clariedcooperation as the folloing/ B:f the school districtcontacts a family ho maintains that they are teaching

their children at home, and the family provides aritten letter of assurance that they have a curriculumthat covers the basic areas of reading, spelling,grammar, math and a course in good citi4enship andthey are pursuing it in a bona de manner !not asham#, this constitutes cooperation ith the schoolC



SUMMARY

2lthough eorts have been made to give more

autonomy to local districts, federal and stateauthority still maintains a great amount of controlconcerning requirements for the state(mandatedcurriculum, sex education, student testing, andcontrols on extracurricular participation. ?oever,these same federal and state las have

strengthened school district, campus, andadministrator accountability measures and it is thehope of everyone involved that these legislativeeorts ill reduce the dropout rate and improvestudent achievement.

professor william allan kritsonis-curriculum issues ppt

Documents