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:
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.
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.
| 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.
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.
To me it is an outline or guideline of what should be taught and what students should learn throughout all Adult Education programs in the state.
Teachers would benefit from statewide uniformity of standards: all programs would be held accountable to the same standards, and professional development could be provided consistently across the state. One participant stated:
All of these changes are to be seen as means to be accountable to Texas Education Agency Adult Basic Education.
A standardized curriculum framework is a guide for instructors to help them facilitate learning activities necessary for students to accomplish their goals.
Participants also stated that a standardized curriculum framework would provide guidance to teachers by assisting with class structure, complimenting existing lesson plans, and/or providing a checklist to track students' progress and/or skills taught in the class. One participant indicated:
As a checklist to refer to, informing teachers of progress, failure and what has been possibly overlooked.
A standardized curriculum framework is designed to encourage teacher accountability.
Provides accountability in the classroom.
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.
It benefits students who transfer to another program that uses the same standards for curriculum.
The advantages to using the TSCF are having a written guide with clearly stated objectives and the resource pages for each standard taught with the objective in a clear easy to follow format.
It keeps students and teacher on track with individual student learning and goals.
It allows the teacher to document (checklists) learner gains when the TABE tests do not show gains in a level.
Easy for students to monitor and see their progress.
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.
It requires a lot of additional paperwork, organization and documentation of outcomes which requires time for which teachers are not currently compensated.
The paperwork is time consuming for students and teachers, taking away from lesson time.
The main disadvantage to using the TSCF is in a multi-level classroom. The difficulty is to teach students on a 3rd grade level curriculum while trying to keep 9-12 grade standards in check.
When asked how learners had responded to the TSCF, the survey participants reported mixed responses - both positive & negative - from the learners.
The adult learner is becoming responsible for learning by checking out bench marks that have been taught, this brings us back to student centered teaching in where students voice their own learning needs based on the functioning level they are at.
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."
Some became discouraged after seeing how much they needed to accomplish.
My students found it incomprehensible and were confused by unfamiliar terminology.
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.
D.
Students can have more ownership in planning their own course of action to meet their goals.
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.
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.
The student can see how much work she/he has done and where they need to go.
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:
VIII. How Labor Intensive Is the TSCF?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.
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.
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.
Difficult to place students because we rely on the TABE survey scores, and the correlations are for the battery tests.
and
In order for the students to keep track of their own progress, extensive explanation is required for terms like "recognize" and "identify" and phrases like "Demonstrate post office procedures," and "Demonstrate communications between home & school". We need more specific terms like "describe" and "use" and "read" and "write" that can be effectively measured.
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.
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.
Learners see the map that will take them to their goals. They also see where they are on the road to success.
I feel it is beneficial to the learners because it focuses on necessary life skills, workforce skills, and academic skills. It encompasses skills necessary to survive.
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.
Provide tools and resources necessary for teachers to effectively use TSCF. A manual to serve as a guide for teaching.
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.
When the respondents were asked what kinds of assistance they thought would be crucial for implementing the TSCF statewide, the responses were:
When asked what kinds of instructional materials were used in response to the TSCF, survey participants responded as follows:
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.
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.
Another participant noted that TSCF "keeps students and teacher on track with individual student's learning and goals." Still others stated that the TSCF allows learners to set their own goals and to become responsible for their own learning by tracking their progress on the checklists. Learners improve their self-esteem through the process by realizing the progress they have made.
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.
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.
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.
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