Skip Navigation  Texas Center for the Advancement of Literacy and Learning Logo

Texas Standardized Curriculum Framework (TSCF)
Survey Results

by
Don Seaman, Chia-Yin Chen,
Lesley Tomaszewski, and Barbara Tondre-El Zorkani
September 2004

INTRODUCTION

In program year 2000-2001, the Florida Curriculum Frameworks (FCF) for adult education programs were introduced to adult education practitioners in Texas. The FCF checklists were modified slightly and the name was changed to the Texas Standardized Curriculum Framework (TSCF). A number of adult education programs piloted the FCF and/or TSCF between 2000 and early 2004. However, no systematic guidance was provided for the programs to implement the TSCF. Consequently, no uniform criteria for measuring the impact and effectiveness of the frameworks exist.

In March 2004, at the request of new state leadership, the Texas Center for the Advancement of Literacy and Learning (TCALL) initiated a review of TSCF. The first step was to conduct a survey of frontline practitioners (instructors) with a working knowledge of TSCF. The survey was designed to acquire from practitioners both qualitative and quantitative data about TSCF implementation, whenever feasible, regarding the following:

  1. advantages/disadvantages of TSCF,
  2. users' perceptions of how TSCF should be used (to drive, guide, supplement instruction and/or document instruction and learning),
  3. its impact on instructional planning and delivery,
  4. users' concerns about time and effort, and
  5. availability and/or development of instructional materials responsive to the standards and benchmarks of TSCF.

METHODS

In March 2004, adult education programs in Texas were notified of the pending survey via the state's Family Literacy and Administrators electronic discussion groups, as well as via Literacy Links, the quarterly newsletter of the Adult and Family Literacy Clearinghouse at the Texas Center for Adult Literacy and Learning, Texas A&M University. Adult educators responding to this call for feedback were then contacted by email and/or phone. To ensure demographic representation, additional programs were contacted and asked to respond to the survey. In April 2004, the survey was distributed electronically to the directors/coordinators and teachers who responded to the request to participate. Since the main purpose of the survey was to acquire practitioners' feedback on the TSCF, only those who had experience in implementing the TSCF and/or FCF were recruited for the study.

Thirty-two people submitted the completed survey to the research team at TCALL. Close-ended questions were used to solicit information regarding the TSCF impact on instructional planning and delivery. Quantitative analysis was used to analyze the responses, and descriptive data are presented in this report. Open-ended questions addressed perceived advantages/disadvantages of the TSCF, users' perceptions of a standardized curriculum framework, concerns regarding TSCF implementation and the assistance necessary for successful implementation statewide. For the open-ended questions, qualitative analysis was used to code and analyze the responses.

DEMOGRAPHICS

A total of 32 participants responded to the survey. Out of the 32 participants, 2 (6%) were directors/coordinators in adult basic education programs, 15 (47%) Adult Secondary Education (ASE) and GED teachers, 9 (28%) teachers of English as a Second Language (ESL), 13 (41%) Adult Basic Education (ABE) teachers, and 6 (19%) tutors or trainers. Some of the respondents held more than one position at the time of survey completion.

Participant's Position (n=32)
Director/ Coordinator ASE/GED Teacher ESL
Teacher
ABE Teacher Others
2 15 9 13 6

 

Thirteen (41%) participants indicated that they piloted or implemented the Florida Curriculum Frameworks (FCF), 14 (44%) did not pilot or implement FCF, and 5 (16%) did not respond to the question. The majority of the participants who implemented FCF started the implementation in the fall of 2001. For TSCF implementation, 29 (91%) indicated that they had implemented TSCF, 2 (6%) did not implement TSCF, and 1 (3%) did not respond to the question. Three programs (10%) implemented TSCF in 2001; 4 (14%) in 2002; sixteen (55%) started the implementation in the fall of 2003; and 3 (10%) in 2004.

With minimal training and no requirements or guidance for programs to follow, programs implementing TSCF made unilateral decisions concerning the breadth of the implementation (e.g., class-wide, level-wide or program-wide) and subject area (e.g., ESL, ASE/GED, or ABE). Most programs that participated in the survey implemented the TSCF in individual classes or program components, but not program-wide. Among the 32 participants, 13 (41%) used TSCF standards in the area of ESL, 23 (72%) in ABE, 17 (53%) in GED and 8 (25%) in Workforce. Some survey participants had taught classes in multiple areas, e.g., ESL and ABE, ABE and GED, and had used TSCF standards in more than one area. The survey results reflect the diverse interpretations of the TSCF by field practitioners participating in the survey.

SURVEY RESULTS

I. What Is a Standardized Curriculum Framework / What Should It Accomplish?

When survey participants were asked to describe what they thought a standardized curriculum framework was or was supposed to accomplish, their responses fell into four categories: a standardized curriculum framework (1) provides statewide consistency, (2) provides guidelines, (3) provides accountability, and (4) comes with a standardized assessment that is aligned with the framework.

II. What Are the Advantages of Using the TSCF?

When asked about the advantages of using the TSCF, survey participants' responses were classified into three categories: TSCF (1) provides state consistency, (2) provides accountability, and (3) serves as a checklist.

III. What Are the Disadvantages to Using the TSCF?

When asked what the disadvantages to using the TSCF were, survey participants' responses fell into four categories: (1) lack of clarity, (2) time constraints on implementation, (3) lack of aligned assessments, and (4) inadequate and inconsistent professional development.

IV. How Have the Learners Responded to the TSCF?

When asked how learners had responded to the TSCF, the survey participants reported mixed responses - both positive & negative - from the learners.

Learners also reportedly responded to the TSCF positively because social and life skills were integrated into the TSCF. One teacher said "they (students) like the comprehensive nature of the TSCF since it is not only ESL but also includes social and life skills."

V. How Is the TSCF Useful to You as an Adult Education Practitioner?

When asked how useful the TSCF was to them as educators, 4 survey participants (13%) indicated that the TSCF was somewhat useful, 5 (16%) indicated the TSCF was useful, 13 (41%) thought that the TSCF was very useful, and 10 (31%) indicated that the TSCF was extremely useful. None of the survey participants indicated that the TSCF was not useful at all. Survey participants generally agreed that the TSCF is useful because it provides them and learners with guidelines for teaching and learning.

graph see long description D.

The TSCF guidelines can also help teachers, especially new teachers, structure and prepare for classes.

From the teacher's view point, it is very useful because of the structured [sic] that is [sic] portrays. The standards and benchmarks allow me to clearly define my objectives daily. This gives me peace at [sic] mind rather than being at a confused state.

Survey participants also responded to this question with answers similar to those previously mentioned under "What Are the Advantages of Using the TSCF?"

VI. How Is the TSCF User-Friendly?

Among the 32 survey participants, 2 (6%) indicated that the TSCF is not user-friendly at all, 9 (28%) indicated somewhat user-friendly, 8 (25%) indicated user-friendly, 7 (21%) indicated very user-friendly, and 6 (19%) indicated that the TSCF is extremely user-friendly.

graph see long description D.

Survey participants specified two ways the TSCF is user-friendly: (1) it assists teachers with course planning, and (2) it shows learners their progress.

VII. How Is the TSCF Not User-Friendly?

Survey participants also indicated why the TSCF is not user-friendly. The issues addressed included the length of the checklists, a lack of clarity in wording, and the amount of paperwork involved. The responses are similar to those discussed under "Lack of clarity" and "Lack of time for implementation" A teacher indicated:

From the teacher's viewpoint, it ... not user friendly because all the paperwork involved. Signing and dating...imagine doing this for 50 students...reading, writing, and mathematics.

Participants also reported that TSCF is cumbersome to use in multilevel classes and may need to be translated to several different languages to assist non-native speakers. A survey participant stated:

To fully understand what it is all about, it needs to be explained in a lower level students' native language. This may not be possible in a class with multiple languages.

VIII. How Labor Intensive Is the TSCF?

All participants responded to this question. Four (13%) responded that TSCF is not at all labor intensive; 4 (13%) indicated somewhat labor intensive; 9 (28%) indicated labor intensive; 4 (13%) indicated very labor intensive; and 10 (31%) responded that the TSCF is extremely labor intensive to implement. Twenty-eight participants indicated varying degrees of labor intensiveness.

graph see long description D.

Participants cited three factors contributing to labor intensive implementation: (1) problems with the TSCF itself, (2) the lack of time to prepare for implementation, and (3) the lack of professional development.

Those survey participants, however, who did not find TSCF implementation labor intensive, provided specific reasons for their comfort level. They find the objectives to be clear. Additionally, teaching materials and professional development have been provided by local peer teachers or program administrators, and simplified ways of record keeping have been introduced, based on each teacher's preference.

XI. How Is the TSCF Beneficial to Learners?

Among the 32 participants responding to the survey, 1 (3%) said the TSCF is not beneficial to the students at all, 3 (9%) indicated that the TSCF is somewhat beneficial to the learners, 9 (28%) indicated beneficial, 10 (31%) indicated very beneficial, and 9 (28%) indicated that the TSCF is extremely beneficial to the learners. Except for one, the rest of the survey participants all agreed that the TSCF is beneficial to learners in various ways and to varying degrees.

graph see long description D.

The survey respondents indicated that the TSCF is beneficial to the learners because (1) it helps learners be responsible for their own learning, and (2) the TSCF addresses a variety of skills of interest to learners.

X. What Are the Changes Needed in Implementing the TSCF?

Except for a few survey participants who indicated that they would not change anything in the TSCF, the changes suggested were categorized under (1) TSCF (standards), (2) instruction, and (3) assessment.

XI. What Are the Criteria Used to Select Materials and/or Learning Activities for the TSCF?

No instructional materials specific to TSCF implementation were provided when programs started the implementation back in 2000-2001. Teachers had to search for classroom teaching materials that complemented the TSCF. Twenty nine (91%) survey participants reported that they used some criteria to select materials and/or learning activities for the TSCF. The main criteria were: (1) that the materials were learner centered; (2) that the materials related to the TSCF; and (3) that excessive amounts of time were not required for using the materials.

XII. What Kinds of Assistance Is Needed for Implementing the TSCF Statewide?

When the respondents were asked what kinds of assistance they thought would be crucial for implementing the TSCF statewide, the responses were:

XIII. What Instructional Materials Are Being Used in Response to the TSCF?

When asked what kinds of instructional materials were used in response to the TSCF, survey participants responded as follows:

XIV. What Evidence Is Collected to Show Progress?

When asked what kind of evidence was collected to show learners' progress, 25 (78%) participants indicated that they use the TSCF checklist to document learners' progress, 31 (97%) use test scores (TABE and/or BEST) to show learners' progress, 18 (56%) document learners' progress using GED completion, 21 (66%) use entries in learners' portfolios, and 5 (16%) indicated that they use a miscellaneous collection of writing samples and completed handouts (checks, money orders, deposit slips and application forms) to document learners' progress.

DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION

Overall, survey participants acknowledge the need for statewide implementation of standards because they provide statewide consistency, guidelines, and a means for accountability. A set of uniform standards written with clear directions and objectives can inform teachers of what needs to be taught and adult learners of what needs to be learned. According to some of the survey participants, the TSCF provides statewide consistency and guidelines, and also serves as a means for accountability.

Other survey participants, however, pointed out weaknesses of the TSCF. These include lack of clarity, lack of instructional materials, lack of aligned assessments, lack of time for implementation, and lack of professional development to support implementation.

Suggestions
Survey participants suggested that the TSCF should provide clearer objectives and be written in simpler language or in learners' native languages for ease of comprehension. It was also recommended that additional standards might need to be added and others deleted although no specific additions or deletions were mentioned.

Suggestions
Many of the survey participants pleaded for supplemental materials that meet two basic criteria: they must be learner-centered and standards-related. The materials should respond to the needs of adult learners, be relevant to their lives and goals, and be of interest to them. The materials also need to be correlated to the TSCF and appropriate for the standards being taught.

Although assessment results should serve as the basis for moving learners to the next completion level of the TSCF, it is time consuming to find or develop assessments, and the reliability and validity of teacher-developed or teacher-found assessments are not addressed. With programs using a variety of assessment instruments to measure learner's progress on the TSCF, consistency in reporting learner gains across the state is virtually non-existent.

Suggestions
In regard to assessments for the TSCF, it was suggested by the survey participants that the TSCF should be modified to align with the state mandated standardized assessments, i.e., TABE and BEST, or an assessment aligned with the TSCF should be developed for statewide use. Several survey participants also indicated that it would be helpful to the teachers if an ESOL assessment bank could be developed and made accessible online.

Suggestions
It was suggested by survey participants that the length of the checklists be shortened, instructional materials and assessments be made available, and professional development to assist teachers with implementation issues be provided.

Suggestions
Professional development needs to be provided regularly and consistently to local programs for effective TSCF implementation. Ways to use the TSCF, ways to locate/create teaching materials for the TSCF, and ways to keep records need to be addressed through professional development.

Next Steps

The initial intent of the survey was twofold: to gather input from adult education practitioners as to the use and usefulness of the TSCF; and to identify a representative group of field personnel to participate in a task force that would further examine not only the TSCF but current national trends in the development and implementation of content standards for adult education. As survey responses were examined, it became increasingly clear that TSCF's introduction in Texas had been unaccompanied by any explanation of the history or rationale behind the decision to adapt Florida's curriculum frameworks, and that interpretations of the TSCF and its usage are as varied as the programs using it.

The survey did not include probes as to whether or not the TSCF reflects what adults should be learning today to function successfully in terms of academic and personal development, real world applications, transition, and workforce development.  But as survey results were analyzed, a number of issues emerged that warrant further study:

The first meeting of the TSCF task force in July 2004 confirmed the critical nature of these issues. During this initial task force meeting, survey participants raised numerous concerns regarding TSCF implementation, sometimes challenging its "fit" with the direction adult education must take in terms of content standards and accountability.  While varying interpretations of TSCF's role in guiding Texas' adult education programs remain an obstacle to consistency, task force members agree that a statewide plan for professional development can help build consensus. Likewise, while misinterpretations of terminology such as content and performance standards, curriculum, framework, and assessment continue to hinder any consistent application statewide but participants are confident that they too can be addressed via professional development.

Adult education practitioners across the state are requesting clarification regarding next steps. Does Texas need to develop new standards, or can TSCF provide the foundation for both content and performance standards development? How can TSCF be elevated from long checklists to useful and appropriate tools that inform instruction and solicit evidence that practitioners are meeting the needs of the learners and responding to state standards? How do we assure the alignment of standards, instruction and assessment and avoid the pitfalls encountered by K-12? Texans recognize the need for a blueprint to guide its programs, "to assure quality instruction and measurable learner gains, to demonstrate accountability, and to strengthen investment in the enterprise of adult education" (Stein 2001).

Along with the survey, Texas' formation of a representative task force of practitioners from across the state is a healthy response to the questions posed and solutions sought. This, coupled with Texas' participation in a national consortium of states supported by the U.S. Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE), affords adult education practitioners in Texas to proceed with informed guidance and support.

Beginning in September 2004, Texas and seven other states will be engaged in the process of developing, implementing, and aligning content standards for their ESL programs. Member states will work with nationally recognized experts to address collective and state-specific needs. Information, challenges, and successes will be shared, and technical assistance will support the review, writing, revision, or adaptation of existing content standards. At the national level, the consortium project will be facilitated by the American Institutes for Research in Washington, D.C. In Texas, Texas LEARNS and TCALL will be responsible for continuing to engage adult education practitioners in the process of content standards development.

Reference

Stein, S. (July 2001). Equipped for the Future Content Standards: What Adults Need to Know and Be Able to Do in the 21st Century. National Institute for Literacy. Washington, D.C. pp. 5-6.

508 UsableNet Approved (v. 2.2)

 

Center Information | Contact Us | Projects | Resources | Library | Quarterly Publication | Documents |
Calendars
| Hotline | Discussions | Research | Administrators | Teachers | Workforce Partnerships |
GED | Directory of Providers | Family Literacy | EL Civics | Site Map | Home

©1995-2008 Texas Center for the Advancement of Literacy and Learning
1-800-441-READ (7323) or 979-845-6615
FAX: 979-845-0952
E-mail: tcall@tamu.edu

- Melaney Moore-Dodson, Webmaster -

[State of Texas] [Texas Homeland Security] [Statewide Search] [State Link Policy]
[Legal Notices] [TEA Division of Discretionary Grants] [Texas A&M University]

Updated
May 8, 2008