Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Linda L. Szwabowski
Abstract
This paper examines the findings of a curriculum management audit conducted by Phi Delta
Kappa. (PDK). PDK conducted the audit in Chesterfield County Public Schools (CCPS) in
September 2007, and presented the findings to the CCPS School Board in January 2008. Owing
to the complexity of the audit, only the findings of Standard I as it pertains to curriculum will be
examined. In addition to background and findings of the audit, legal and ethical issues will be
discussed.
PDK CCPS 3
Management Audit. The audit examined the curriculum management system which had been
designed and implemented by the school division. The adopted policies of the CCPS School
Board comprised the framework used as a basis for the audit. The audit examined the system
This paper analyzes Standard I with regard to curriculum. Standard I is defined as follows: “The
School District Demonstrates Its Control of Resources, Programs and Personnel” (2008, p. 13).
The impetus for this audit, as well as others conducted throughout the system, was the
selection of a new Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Marcus Newsome. Dr. Newsome requested
that audits of specified areas be part of the terms of agreement between the school division and
himself as part of his selection as Superintendent. Such an audit shows not only strengths and
weaknesses of the specified areas, but also whether or not the policies and practices are in
compliances with the state regulations. The information gained from the scrutiny could be used
For the purposes of this paper, the PDK requirements for curricular quality control will be used:
“(1) A written curriculum in some clear and translatable form for application by teachers in
classroom or related instructional settings, (2) a taught curriculum, which is shaped by and
interactive with the written one, and (3) a tested curriculum, which includes the tasks, concepts,
and skills of pupil learning and which is linked to both the taught and written curricula”
(p.7).This is commonly expressed as alignment with what is written, taught and tested.
The Curriculum Management Audit was conducted by thirteen auditors from around the
United States of America (PDK, p. iii). The lead auditor, Sue Shidaker, returned in July 2008 to
conduct an intense four day training workshop for central office personnel. The purpose of the
training was to provide an explanation and analysis of the audit. She also provided guidance on
how to implement specific recommendations and the rationale behind the recommendations.
The premise of Standard I is that school divisions demonstrate control of resources, programs
and personnel. There are a number of indicators that can be used to substantiate sufficient
control. PDK (2008) describes them in the report issued to CCPS as follows:
• A clear set of policies that establish an operational framework for management that
permits accountability;
• A clear set of policies that reflect state requirements and local program goals and the
• A functional administrative structure that facilitates the design and delivery of the
District’s curriculum;
• Documentation of school board and central office planning for the attainment of goals,
• A clear mechanism to define and direct change and innovation within the school system
to permit maximization of its resources on priority goals, objectives and mission (p.13).
PDK delivered the findings in January 2008: “current policies are inadequate to direct a
sound curriculum management system and establish quality control of the educational
program and organizational operations. Additionally, auditors found the use of the policies
was rarely a practice for determining the basis for decisions except in instances of recent
changes in law; often interviewees were unaware of any policies related to curriculum and
assessment” (pp.14-15).
The CCPS School Board Policy Manual may be accessed online. Most of the instructional
policies are in the 300 section. The 54 page section entitled “Section 300-INSTRUCTION”
has only 6 pages that refer directly to the development and delivery of instruction. Those
policies were last revised in March 1994. Figure 1 (page 6) illustrates the years of adoption
or revision for the eleven policies that deal directly or indirectly with instruction.
PDK CCPS 6
Figure 1.
Years of Adoption of Revision for CCPS Curriculum Policies relating to PDK Standard 1
800
700 711 724
Policy Number
600
500 315.2
302.1
400 302 315.1
300 301 315
200 218 203
100 102
0
1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Year of Adoption or Latest Revision
218: Accountability
301,302,302.1:Curriculum Development
Six criteria were used to determine whether the CCPS policies for Standard 1 (Curriculum) were
in compliance:
CCPS was in compliance only for Criterion D. The County has hired a non-contractual person to
revise the School Board Policies; the work is yet to be publicly unveiled. While the courts have
routinely placed the power of curriculum instruction in the hands of the local school board, in
accordance with Virginia statutory law, policy 302 hands the responsibility over to the
Superintendent. According to Brickell and Paul (2005), this is a common scenario, owing to the
complexity of curriculum and assessment. Their entire book is based on the premise that it is the
school board that ought to control these policies, and that this is a uniquely American perspective
that can be traced to our beginnings as a democracy. They argue that control of the curriculum by
those with a vested interest is unhealthy, and will lead to less rigorous results.
PDK CCPS 8
The body of the Constitution of the United States does not mention education, but the First and
Fourteenth Amendments have been used in court cases involving Freedom of Speech (First
Amendment), academic freedom, and Due Process (Fourteenth). Since there is little CCPS policy
appropriate.
There is a paucity of legal cases specific to inadequate curriculum and school boards. An
exhaustive search turned up no legal cases where school boards had been sued over their failure
to properly design and implement an effective system of curricular quality control. When the
courts do rule on curricular issues, research indicates the courts nearly always side with the
Even school boards are not without their limits. In writing the majority opinion for Board of
Education v. Pico (1982) , Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Stevens, affirmed
that the First Amendment limits the discretion of the school board to remove books from the
school’s library. The key points are the environment (the library), the fact that the school board
ignored its own policy with regard to the recommendations of the school’s committee that
oversaw the selection of library materials, that the compulsory classroom environment is not
equal to a library, where choice of materials is essential, and that a school board may not remove
materials from the school’s library because the materials are distasteful to board members.
When a curriculum has detailed, prescribed material that is written, taught and tested, the teacher
may have freedom as far as the instructional delivery and strategies that are used to reach and
PDK CCPS 9
teach the students, but the teacher is limited in the amount of discretionary material that is
provided. The downside to a tightly controlled curriculum is that it may provide little opportunity
for the teachers to exercise their First Amendment rights of free speech and their traditional right
of academic freedom.
The right of academic freedom, while not an enumerated right, is a long-standing tradition in
American society. As the County continues to develop a more tightly controlled curriculum,
there will almost certainly be those who view the revisions as an affront akin to Parducci v.
Rutland (1970). In that case, Jack Rutland, the principal of Jeff Davis High School in
Montgomery, Alabama, fired Marilyn Parducci because she insisted upon assigning a Kurt
Vonnegut story to her eleventh grade class. Ms. Parducci sued, citing her First Amendment right
of academic freedom and her Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. She won and was
Since the County did not meet Criterion A , providing a comprehensive curriculum that is
written, taught, and tested, CCPS teachers currently have a great deal of latitude in some areas,
with respect to how they teach the Standards of Learning specific to their disciplines. It may be
difficult without well-defined parameters to know what is engaging and relevant, and what is
pure drivel. We owe it to the teachers to provide them a solid framework from which to operate.
Academic freedom is ill-defined in the courts. One landmark case that is often cited is Keyishian
v. Board of Regents (1967). This case was reversed and remanded in 1995. While interpretations
may change, and curriculum must evolve, a solid base of operations will help to ensure that more
All school divisions in the Commonwealth of Virginia are under the auspices of the Virginia
Board of Education (Agency 20), whose rules are published online. The Code of Virginia is
published in the Virginia Register. In § 22.1-253.13:3 of the Code of Virginia, one finds that a
school division’s “requirements and guidelines for instructional programs” are answerable to the
As all CCPS schools remain accredited, it is unlikely that the Virginia Board of Education would
take any action. Should CCPS face the difficult circumstance of having a school or schools not
make Annual Yearly Progress (AYP), the division would be required to design and implement a
The Guidance Documents found on the website for the Virginia Department of Education
(VDOE) provide a 1999 memo for K-3 reading and mathematics. The memo directs school
divisions to maintain records of K-3 student achievement in these to areas. Elsewhere on the
VDOE site, one may find in the core curricular frameworks a number of sample questions and
strategies relating to student success, pacing guidance, and other strategies to guide classroom
instruction.
The other VDOE Guidance Documents are scattershot, referring to specified populations (i.e.
Special Education, Gifted, Limited English Proficiency) or programs (i.e. Character Education,
Personal Finance and Driver Education). Interestingly enough, all the documents listed have
dates of 1999-2003. Presumably they have been reviewed in the not too distant past.
One might suppose that the VDOE is loathe to intrude upon the local school board’s sovereignty,
provided that the school division in question is one that produces successful students as
measured by the Standards of Learning (SOL), meets the very basic requirements set forth by the
PDK CCPS 11
Standards of Quality (SOQ) and has followed the letter of the law for the Standards of
Accreditation (SOA).
The SOQ were amended in 2007. Standard 7, § 22.1-253.13:7, deals with school board policies.
It says that policies must be reviewed every five years, and reviewed as needed. It would
behoove CCPS to add a “Reviewed Date” to the end of each School Board policy so that
interested parties can easily note which policies have been reviewed within the past five years,
Thankfully, although the CCPS Curriculum Audit (PDK, 2008) revealed several areas
in need of remediation, to date there have been no court cases involving the fact that the
management system in place revealed weaknesses to be discussed when Standards 2 and 3 are
analyzed.
Ethical Issues
Into the midst of all the change that is happening with regard to the curriculum comes a
thorny problem that may impede the necessary changes to policy as well as curriculum revision:
a budget challenge of great proportions. How heartbreaking this must be for the CCPS School
Board, particularly those long-serving members who have strived to provide innovative students
to our students! Even Solomon might pause at the decisions to be made. The good news is that
some relief has been provided of late. The bad news is that some outstanding educators will still
The poses a question on the Ethics of Critique: How will decisions made by the CCPS School
Board impact specific groups? Will the disparities revealed by the Curriculum Management
Audit (PDK, 2008) remain in place until the school division is in a stronger place financially?
An additional question is raised from the perspective of the Ethics of Justice: Is it fair that the
implementation of some programs designed to help implement the CCPS Design for
Excellence be delayed at some schools because CCPS wasn’t able to budget implementation
across the board? For example, the expansion of elementary world languages has been put on
hold for next year. This means that students at the schools who had been in the pipeline for
next year will now have to wait a year or more to begin study of a second language. By
happenstance, the majority of the schools that implemented a world languages program in the
first two years tend to represent higher socio-economic areas of Chesterfield County.
Middle and high school programs are being affected as well. In both “core” and
“non-core” areas, principals are having to make tough decisions about smaller programs. In
Utilitarian terms, “What is the best use of the limited resources so that the most students will
For the coming fiscal year, The Principle of Benefit Maximization (“getting the most ‘bang’ for
our buck”) will almost certainly take precedence over the Principle of Rational Benevolence
(promoting the well-being of others). This is unsavory, to say the least. It doesn’t mean that the
school division is no longer committed to the Design for Excellence. The non-consequentialists
are not out of the game. The principle of equal respect will win out in the long run. As moral
PDK CCPS 13
agents, it is our responsibility to speak up for what is right (Strike, Haller, Soltis, 2005). What is
As we seek to provide our students with “21st Century Skills”, we must be steadfast in our belief
that the hard work of change is in the best interest of our students. We will find a way to make
it happen.
References
Keyishian v. Board of Regents ( No. 105) 514 U.S. 673 (1995) 255 Fl Supp. 981,
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0385_0589_ZS.html
Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982), U.S. Supreme Court Bound Volumes, United
http://web.cjc.edu:8080/library_Website/APA_Legal_Style.htm .
Brickell, H and Paul, R. Curriculum and Assessment Policy: 20 Questions for Board Members,
Chesterfield County Public Schools, School Board Policy Manual, Instruction, retrieved March
http://www.chesterfield.k12.va.us/CCPS/About_CCPS/policy_manual.htm .
Parducci v. Rutland, 316 F. Supp. 352; (M.D. Al.1970) U.S. Dist. , retrieved from LexisNExis
http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.library.vcu.edu/us/lnacademic/mungo/lexseestat.do?bct
=A&risb=21_T6374069619&homeCsi=167227&A=0.17537351888646668&urlEnc=IS
O-8859-1&&citeString=316%20F.%20Supp.%20352,at%20353&countryCode=USA
Phi Delta Kappa International. ( 2008). A Curriculum Management Audit of the Chesterfield
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/Accountability/soafulltxt.pdf