State Curriculum Guidelines

Abstract

This article presents an overview of the process of state curriculum guidelines for public schools in the United States. The US educational system has been historically based on the concept of local control. The local school boards or committees of the countless educational districts have had the final say over the subjects and content taught in schools. This began to change in the latter half of the nineteenth century as the states themselves became more heavily involved in the educational process and school oversight. By the 1950s the Federal Government was exerting more influence over the nation's schools. This started with Cold War era legislation that aimed to improve the teaching of math and sciences in the public schools. The movement gained momentum during the 1960s, as education became a civil rights issue while the South was desegregated and landmark laws were passed by the Congress to ensure that all children had access to an equal education regardless of racial or economic status. The growth of federal influence culminated in 2001 with the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, which cemented federal influence over the state educational systems. As the schools changed, so did the educational system itself. Ideas such as required curriculum, curriculum development, mandatory educational standards, and new methods of teaching all began to find their way into the educational lexicon. More recently, the Common Core State Standards (Common Core) have been adopted by many states, and are expected to influence curriculum development and assessment practices as they are implemented.

Overview

Prior to 1900, the federal government had little say in what the states and local educational authorities chose to teach. This was a guarded prerogative at the state and local level. In fact, some states education boards passed on the responsibility for the selection of subjects to the local school boards in the different areas of the state.

This did not necessarily mean that there wasn't a certain degree of similarity in what was being taught. Before the turn of the twentieth century, the United States was a very different country, with most of its population still living in rural areas and small towns. The skill set needed by the population of most of the country was limited, and few students continued on to high school (if there was one even available) after graduating from the elementary level. This lack of requirement for higher order skills translated into a fairly homogenous set of subjects being taught by most public schools of the day irrespective of region. The subjects taught were basic, and the "three R's" (reading, writing, and arithmetic) were the order of the day. Educators believed that a firm grasp of these subjects would allow the student to master the other courses being taught, such as geography, history, and very limited sciences.

As the United States entered the 1900s, changes were made in the curriculum, driven by advances in the fields of psychology and sociology. Some cities began experimenting with changes in teaching methods and courses were developed to be more in line with how students actually learned and related to the subjects being taught. However, these nascent efforts were not widespread and much of the country continued to adhere to the old methods and basic curricula through the 1930s, when the decade-long national disaster known as the Great Depression began to force changes in this outdated system.

Through the early years of the twentieth century, the high school curriculum in America was driven by the subject matter requirements of the colleges, not by the educational requirements of the states (Tyler, 1981). Since there were few public high schools in many states and very few (less than 10 percent) of American students either attended or graduated from the high schools of the time, the high school curricula of the day offered only college preparatory subjects and very little in general educational subjects. Until the 1930s, a slate of courses developed by a group of scholars in 1893 dominated high school college preparatory programs.

The seminal change in this system began in the years immediately before the First World War. This was driven by the establishment of public high schools by most states, and the rising level of real world skills required by the nation's population as the country transitioned from a primarily rural agricultural base to an urban society based on technology and industrialization.

As more students attended high school without the intention of enrolling in college, it became apparent that a separate track of vocational education needed to be added to the high school curriculum. This was accomplished in 1917 after a groundswell of public support from all sectors of the economy culminated with the passage of the Smith-Hughes Act that provided federal funds for the establishment of state vocational education programs. The responsibility for overseeing these programs fell to new state boards of vocational education which were tasked with defining the statewide curriculum for these programs. This marked a beginning in consolidation of state authority, a trend that continues today.

Impact of Great Depression. The start of the Great Depression also marked the beginning of the end for the old system of education. Not only did more students enter high school (since there was no employment for them), they discovered that the two curriculum tracks available to them, college preparatory and the highly selective vocational programs did not meet the requirements of the new paradigm brought on by the decade long economic slump. Several large scale efforts were subsequently launched to address the new requirements and to develop new, general curricula. At the same time, the new methods of teaching began to become more prevalent as a concerted effort was undertaken by many states to familiarize teachers with the new styles of teaching, and encouraging them to include the methods in their courses.

Not only were these new methods beginning to see widespread use, but studies were also undertaken that demonstrated a need for access to professional resources for the teachers and school districts, as well as efforts to be more responsive to the needs of the individual students. These new efforts, born of necessity, resulted in an entirely revamped and comprehensive curriculum for many schools and began the trend towards the modern methods used today.

The Second World War. The Second World War not only brought the Depression to an end, it also derailed what was being taught and developed in the nation's schools. Like the rest of the country, the public schools turned their focus to meeting the requirements of the national war effort. Emphasis was placed on preparing students for the military and industry, as well as indoctrination into the wartime measures and sacrifices required of every American citizen. Very little was done in the development of any curriculum that did not directly meet these goals.

With the end of the war, schools once again embarked on expanding their educational subject matter. Over the next decade there was much experimentation with radical new ideas and concepts in teaching, sometimes driven by various special interest groups. Some of these were mandated by state or local boards; however, the experimentation did not make a lasting impact on most programs and progress continued to be made in what was by then the generally accepted trends in reform.

Through the 1950s, at the height of the Cold War, America's schools were again called upon to support national security objectives. The National Defense Education Act was passed by Congress to fund enhancements in the teaching of math and science in the schools, and large amounts of funding were directed towards the modernization of the curricula, teaching materials, and educational methods in these subjects, as well as in-service education for the teachers themselves.

The Common Core State Standards. The Common Core State Standards (Common Core) are a set of standards for English and mathematics instruction for kindergarten through 12th grade, developed in 2010 by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers, in consultation with education researchers, parents, teachers, and school administrators. Adoption of the Common Core is voluntary, and each state makes an independent choice whether or not to adopt the Common Core. At its height, forty-six states had adopted the Common Core, but as of 2017 eight of those states had officially repealed or withdrawn from the Common Core.

The primary purpose of the Common Core is to establish high goals and expectations for education across the country, so students from all regions will be well prepared to succeed in higher education and in their careers, to collaborate and compete with their peers. In addition, the Common Core is meant to foster collaboration between states in matters such as textbook and assessment development, and developing support services for teachers and schools who are involved in implementing the Common Core. For instance, many states are currently collaborating on developing student assessments based on the Common Core, which will replace current end-of-year assessments; these common assessments are expected to be implemented beginning in the 2014-2015 school year.

The Common Core is not a curriculum but a set of standards for what students should learn each year; implementation of the Common Core, including the development of curricula, is left to each school system. For this reason, as well as the fact that the adoption of the Common Core is a new and ongoing process, means that it is not yet possible to evaluate its effects on teaching and learning. However, it is not unreasonable to expect that adoption of the Common Core will foster greater uniformity concerning what is taught and learned at specific grade levels across the country.

The evolution of curriculum development and teaching methods continues, and the cumulative results of what has been done in the past manifests itself in today's system of curriculum development, teaching methods, and student centered learning.

Application. The control over the development of each school district's curricula and educational methods resides, much as it did one hundred years ago, with the individual state and local boards of education. As discussed earlier, each state approves a set of subjects that will be taught in public schools and establishes the standards and objectives that must be met in these subjects. The local school authorities then decide how those subjects will be taught in their schools to meet the state guidelines, often in the form of curriculum committees which then standardize teaching techniques and lesson plans for each grade to ensure that each student receives a consistent learning experience regardless of the diversity of the school district's student population.

The process begins at the federal level, even though the federal government has traditionally left the authority and responsibility of deciding subject matter and setting standards and guidelines for the education of the state's population to the states. But the federal government has played an increasing role in determining what will be taught and to what level it is taught in the state schools by the enactment of federally mandated programs, regulations, and standards. The controversial No Child Left Behind law is a good example. It sets federal standards and goals in the areas of math, science, and reading that must be met by individual schools and districts over time if they wish to receive additional federal funding for their programs. The ramifications of not meeting these goals can be serious for the schools failing to make the cut, and can include staff firings, forced curricula changes, and even privatization or the establishment of competing charter schools.

Additionally, even though the federal government provides less than ten percent of the funds for K-12 public education, these dollars are critical since they fund many of the programs that are required by federal regulation, mostly focused on the growing number of disadvantaged children in the U.S. educational system. In 2002, the federal government spent over 30 billion dollars to fund these local programs ("Curriculum," 2007, para. 7), money that would otherwise have to be found by the individual state and local school programs themselves.

The federal government does not so much set curriculum requirements for schools, as it ensures and enforces the right of each student to have access to a certain level of education, educational equality, and opportunity regardless of their circumstances.

As Tyler (1981) notes, the bulk of the responsibility for the establishment of educational standards, curriculum guidelines, teaching methods, and sometimes even the selection of educational materials and resources falls to the 50 individual states who exercise the primary oversight on the 16,000 plus school districts and educational entities that currently exist in the United States. This is accomplished by each state's department of education, who has authority over all of the school districts located within that state. The source of this authority emanates from the state's constitution, which requires mandatory twelve years of education for each child residing in the state. The state legislatures also have the right to legislate changes, add additional requirements, and to increase oversight authority when required. The actual extent and level of state oversight varies with each state (Tyler, 1981).

Although the state and federal governments together establish the minimum educational standards that must be met by each individual school, the local school districts and educational authorities have almost complete discretionary powers when deciding how to teach mandatory curricula, what material to use, what additional subjects will be taught, as well as in imposing any further requirements or guidelines in addition to state or federal requirements. There is however, a limit to the power of local school boards to place restrictions on what they will teach based on ideological issues. Personal and subjective opinions may not be expressed in the official curriculum developed and approved by each district.

When designing and implementing curriculum, myriad issues and requirements must be taken into consideration, among these:

• Existing, applicable state and federal guidelines
• The amount of authority extended by the state with regard to developing curriculum
• The local issues, community concerns, and values that must be taken into account
• The district's student demographics, for example, the number of minorities or English as second language speakers
• The financial, material, and human resources available to the district

In particular, the issue of meeting imposed standards such as NCLB has been at the forefront of consideration when developing curricula in recent years. A complete review of the existing conditions within the district ranging from levels of student achievement, funding and tax base issues, as well as the level of how well its staff understands the interrelationship of these issues when trying to meet required standards is usually undertaken when a major curriculum development project is proposed or begun.

Not only must curriculum satisfy existing state and federal requirements, it must satisfy the local requirements, expectations, and standards of the communities in which the schools are located. In the end, it is not only the federal government, but also the local community that the schools boards and educators must answer to. Ultimately, the development and implementation of curricula and instruction remains a very much a locally controlled process.

The actual mechanics of the development process for a major curriculum revision takes place over a significant period of time, sometimes lasting for three years or more in the case of a large project. There are many models for this development phase, such as the one put forth by Martin, Saif and Thiel (1987):

• A committee of educators is formed to define the objectives and rationale of the project. A process is put in place to collect feedback from other educators in the schools
• Revisions are made to the original set of objectives and rationale based upon this feedback. The development process is begun for the activities phase and subcommittees are formed for the division of responsibilities and a quality control process is put into place
• The subcommittees make their recommendations, then the feedback cycle is run again
• The new curriculum is then tested on a small scale by a select group of teachers who then provide their critiques to the committee
• A second educators committee is then formed including some of the original members of the initial group, it then collates and evaluates the results of the test program
• This committee then makes revisions to the new curriculum based on the results of the test
• The revised product is then submitted to school administrators, faculty, and the board of education for approval
• The initial test group of teachers then transition into the role of trainers and serve as the subject matter experts for the rest of the teachers in the district as the curricula is implemented
• A final committee may be formed, also composed of alumni of the earlier developmental committees. Their task is to monitor the implementation of the curriculum and to make mid-stream revisions as necessary.
• As the curriculum matures, in-service training is continued using the original trainers as the focal points to ensure that the program remains dynamic (Martin, et al., 1987, p. 40).

The duration of this developmental and implementation cycle may take several years and absorb significant amounts of personnel time and the district's resources. This requires consistent levels of funding and a long term commitment on the part of the school district and the board of education.

Viewpoints

Changes can create controversy and fuel resistance from those affected by the changes. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law passed in 2001 is one example of this. Passed on a bi-partisan basis, the law actually re-authorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and according to the U.S Department of Education website, is intended " … to improve the performance of America's elementary and secondary schools while at the same time ensuring that no child is trapped in a failing school" ("Executive Summary," 2007, para. 3)

The law is based on four primary pillars:

• Increased accountability
• More choices for parents
• More leeway for states, school districts, and schools
• Putting reading first

Increased accountability will be accomplished by requiring the states to develop statewide learning standards and proficiency objectives in math and reading, a system of annual standardized assessment testing for grades 3-8, and a "carrot-and-stick" approach to encourage schools to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) towards these goals. Schools meeting their objectives will be worthy for State Academic Achievement Awards; schools that do not make adequate progress over time would face sanctions and restructuring although schools in this category would also be offered substantial incentives to meet the goals

Parents will have more choices and options to enable them to either opt out of failing schools, establish charter schools, or obtain federal funds for supplementary educational services for their children. School districts would be required to allot funds to support these programs. Greater flexibility will be achieved by allowing states and school districts to use much greater leeway in distributing their federal education funds with the caveat that they meet the state specified progress goals.

The law has caused a massive ripple through the country's educational system. The goals established to show adequate yearly progress have been criticized as being confusing, too rigid, and failing to take into account numerous scenarios and variables that could effectively censure a school for quantitative failure to show progress, when this is qualitatively not actually the case.

Not only is the mandatory imposition of standards or guidelines upon schools a matter for dissent, the curricula process itself can become controversial; some critics charge that the process itself, in some cases, has overwhelmed the educational content of the curriculum in many districts. In other words, the process, standards, guidelines, and methods now drive the teaching focus as opposed to the actual subject material itself which may not even be defined by a district's own documents.

In "Curriculum First," school board member Roger Shattuck (2005), a retired college professor, recounts his experiences with these phenomena. He recalls that as a new board member, he noticed that the board very seldom discussed curriculum. Upon further investigation and trips to the school to familiarize himself with some of the core courses, he found difficult, overcrowded conditions and a challenging environment for teachers. After volunteering as the school board representative to the teacher's curriculum committee while it prepared for a major accreditation visit, he prepared by obtaining and studying the four main set of documents dealing with curriculum for the district. What he found profoundly disturbed him.

According to Shattuck, not only had some of the committee apparently not read the state's educational framework document; they also were not familiar with the district's own curriculum guidelines. Curious as to why this was so, he investigated the situation further and concluded that out of a four inch high stack of documents, there was no useful information to follow.

Shattuck states the documents which filled the 600 or so pages were detailed instructions of what "students should know and be able to do," yet there were no lists of topics, content, or subjects to study. There were also extensive instructions regarding how to teach non-specific curricula material. The curriculum guide itself was based on a highly controversial pedagogy, constructivism, which most of the board members knew nothing about, yet it was labeled "best practice" in the curriculum guide.

Upon further inquiry at educational conferences, the author concluded that the key documents of other districts also contained the same lack of usable curriculum guidance. Shattuck also discusses the difficulty of establishing standards when there is no curricula and subject material defined to establish the standards on. He notes that the complaints about standardized testing, that teachers were forced to teach to the test, perhaps in large part due to a lack of curricula to teach to. He stated, "If there is no coherent curriculum to teach to and to base tests on, then one has to teach to the test" (Shattuck, 2005, p. 8)

The two examples above could be referred to as the "chicken or the egg" dilemma. However, in a larger sense it reinforces a real point. Although the proponents and critics of such initiatives as NCLB, curriculum reform and the host of other national educational issues undoubtedly all have legitimate points and counterpoints. But they do not have all of the answers alone.

Since the first schools were established in the United States to provide an education to the nation's children, one of the foremost educational questions has always been "What shall we teach, and how will we teach it"? When the nation was young, very simple skills and knowledge were adequate for the overwhelming majority of the nation's citizens. The agricultural base of the economy required little in terms of education beyond basic literacy, writing skills, and the ability to do simple mathematics. With the growth of the nation and the rise of industrialization and technology, these skills, taught by rote, with little regard paid to teaching techniques and the needs of the pupils, were no longer enough.

The first attempts at curriculum reform in cities such as Denver and St. Louis had limited results, yet they laid the groundwork for larger efforts in the future. With the focus of the nation's economy moving from the small farms and towns of the countryside, into the urban factories and cities, the need for new skills and a better school system was readily apparent. A modern nation needed modern skills. Yet, as in many cases, it was not until the Great Depression forced change that a widespread effort was made.

Today's process of curriculum development is the result of more than half a century of effort by educators.

It takes into account many factors, the requirements of state and federal regulations and guidelines, the expectations of the community, the resources available to the schools and teachers, and of course, the needs of those being taught. A well developed, coherent, and clearly defined curriculum is the key to success and the very heart and soul of a school district's educational efforts. Yet, without community involvement, adequate resources, and a student population prepared to learn, many districts may fail their mandate.

Terms & Concepts

Adequate yearly progress: Adequate yearly progress is the measured improvement to be made each year to meet education goals set by the No Child Left Behind Act.

Charter schools: Schools that function with independence from many of the requirements that pertain to traditional public school systems. "Charters" establishing these schools are performance contracts “detailing the school's mission, program, goals, students served, methods of assessment, and ways to measure success. Charter schools are responsible to their sponsor, most often a state or local school board, to produce good academic results and adhere to the charter contract” (“Charter school information,” n.d., ¶ 1).

Constructivism: Constructivism is a method of teaching that places emphasis on the learner rather than the teacher. It is the student who interacts with learning materials and gains an understanding. The learner constructs their own ideas and solutions to problems.

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA): The ESEA is the first, largest, and most wide-ranging federal education law that provides significant monetary funds for kindergarten through twelfth grade education. The act stipulates that funding can be distributed for school materials, educational resources, and parental involvement programs.

In-service training: In-service training provides on-going education for employees to assist them in developing skills in a specific area. This type of training takes place after an individual is already working.

National Defense Education Act: The National Defense Education Act (NDEA) is federal legislation that was passed in 1958 to provide help to every level of education in the United States. The intent of passing NDEA was to advance the expansion of science, math, and foreign language education and provide help to other subjects like geography, ESL, counseling, and technical education, among others.

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, is a federal law that reauthorizes federal programs that aim to raise the standards of accountability for schools in order to advance the performance of school systems. The act also allows for parental leeway so that parents can choose for themselves the schools they want their children to be enrolled in.

Pedagogy: Pedagogy is the art or science of being a teacher, and also references instructional strategies.

Privatization: Privatization is the process of transferring delivery of services that was once completed by public employees to the hands of private business owners and workers.

Bibliography

Charter school information. (n.d.) Treetops School International. Retrieved June 1, 2007, from http://www.treetops.org/index.php/charter-school-information-mainmenu-13

Curriculum. (2007). Retrieved June 1, 2007, from http://law.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/curriculum/print

Martin, D., Saif, P., & Thiel, L. (1986) Curriculum development: Who is involved and how? Educational Leadership (pp. 40-48).

Nerison-Low, R., & Ashwill, M. (1999). State level initiatives. In The Educational System in the United States: Case Study Findings, March 1999. Retrieved June 5, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/USCaseStudy/chapter2a.html

Rationale for teaching/learning at the school. Retrieved June 2, 2007, from St. Ita's and St. Joseph's School http://homepage.eircom.net/~stitasandstjosephs/teaching%20methods.htm

Shattuck, R. (2005, Spring). Curriculum first. American Educator. Retrieved June 5, 2007, from http://www.aft.org/pubsreports/american_educator/issues/spring05/shattuck.htm

Sparks, S. D. (2017). Common Core revisions: What are states really changing? Education Week, 36(19), 5. Retrieved March 23, 2018, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=120975231&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Tyler, R. W. (1981). Curriculum development since 1900. Educational Leadership (pp. 598-601).

United States Department of Education (n.d.). 2001 Executive Summary of No Child Left Behind. Retrieved June 2, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html

Suggested Reading

Jackson, P. W. (Ed.). (1992). Handbook of research on curriculum: A project of the American Educational Research Association. New York: Macmillan Pub. Co.

Janesick, V. J. (2003). Curriculum trends: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Koncheloe, J. L., & Weil, D. (Eds.). (2001). Standards and schooling in the United States: An encyclopedia . Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Liebtag, E. (2013, November). Moving forward with Common Core State Standards implementation: Possibilities and potential problems. Journal of Curriculum & Instruction 7 , p. 56-70. Retrieved December 23, 2013, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=92612449&site=ehost-live

Pinar, W. F. (Ed.). (2003). International handbook of curriculum research. Mahway, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011, April). Common Core standard: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher 20 , p. 103-116. Retrieved December 23, 2013, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=60442272&site=ehost-live

Pushkin, D. (2001). Teacher training: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Steadman, S. C., & Evans, C. (2013, Nov.). Curriculum, instruction, and the Common Core State Standards. Journal of Curriculum & Instruction 7 , p. 1-5. Retrieved December 23, 2013, from EBSCO online database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=92612454&site=ehost-live