Curriculum Modification

Prepared by Nari Koga, Boston College and Tracey Hall, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist
National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum

This article is also available in

Word and

PDF formats.

Note: Updated on 11/2/09; Please visit the AIM Center home page.

Introduction
Modifying existing general curriculum has been an effective way to create more accessible learning
environments to support all students and their teachers in various educational contexts. There are
many terms in use regarding changes made to curriculum, such as enhancements,
accommodations, overlapping, and adaptations. We differentiate curriculum
modification from curriculum enhancement for the purposes of this paper. In this way, we can clarify
the definition and nature of curriculum modification, to emphasize its effectiveness in improving
education for all children, and to provide vivid examples and useful resources which will enrich
actual classroom practices for diverse learners. Although both ideas, enhancementand modification,
become pivotal when we consider improving accessibilities of general curriculum in relation to
individual students' needs, the approach, design, and methods resulted from each idea may differ
significantly.
Curriculum enhancement is most likely to be built around existing general curriculum and to involve
teachers' alterations of curriculum. Frequently, teachers will enhance curriculum with additions of
instructional strategies. Frequently enhancements are created to evaluate and teach adequate
background knowledge in preparation for a new task. Additionally, teachers may incorporate a
variety of instructional materials and procedures to meet students' needs, including the use of coteaching, and/or instructional collaboration.
Curriculum modification differs from curriculum enhancement in that modification is a more extreme
alteration to the curriculum than that of an enhancement. Modifications involve combinations of
altered content knowledge, conceptual difficulty, educational goals, and instructional method versus
building scaffolding and bridges between existing curriculum and people involved in the educational
process. Such differentiation between curriculum modification and curriculum enhancement is based
on ranging degrees in which our educational approach becomes distinct from or maintains the
similarities to existing general curriculum. In other words, educational practices in which students
and teachers interactions differ from those designed in existing general curriculum to a greater
extent when curriculum ismodified than when enhanced.
There are numerous ways curriculum modifications are put into practice for different purposes and
outcomes in various levels, such as individual, classroom, and school-wide. Due to the flexible
nature and countless applications, curriculum modification often remains an ambiguous concept and
is understood as an umbrella term to include multifarious aspects of everyday teaching
practices. We have refined our definition of curriculum modification based on understandings of its
nature and potentialities. The discussion below introduces a way to understand the concept and
some concrete practices of curriculum modification through presenting how we have defined
curriculum modification, how components can be categorized, what research says about its
effectiveness, and how such empirical evidence can be applied to general education settings. We
provide in the end, a list of useful Web resources and related literatures for the reader.
top

Definition
It is important to note that no single definition of curriculum modification exists. Many researchers
offer many definitions from various fields of discipline. In other words, the practice of curriculum
modification has been discussed in different language by many researchers from various specialty
areas in education. For instance, in addition to the most frequently used terms, accommodation and
adaptation, some use terms such as alteration, differentiation, change, revision, enhancement,

compacting, integration and scaffolding to discuss teaching events involving curriculum

modification. Another issue is that discussions regarding curriculum modification are often
interwoven with ideas of strategy use for intended educational purposes.This creates a situation in
which we face the difficulty of separating literature focusing on teaching strategies from those
focusing on curriculum modification.
Our challenge is to clarify these ambiguities and to refine the definition of curriculum modification. In
this review, we define curriculum modification as modified contents, instructions, and/or learning
outcomes for diverse student needs. In other words, curriculum modification is not limited to
instructional modification or content modification but includes a continuum of a wide range of
modified educational components. Similarly, Comfort (1990) defines curriculum modification as "the
adapting or interpreting of a school's formal curriculum by teachers into learning objectives and units
of learning activities judged most reasonable for an individual learner or particular group of learners"
(p. 397). Curriculum modification involves change to a range of educational components in a
curriculum, such as content knowledge, the method of instruction, and student's learning outcomes,
through the alteration of materials and programs (Comfort, 1990; King-Sears, 2001; MacMackin &
Elaine, 1997; Reisberg, 1990).Although some may distinguish instruction from curriculum and argue
that mere instructional modification should not be considered as curriculum modification, defining
curriculum modification requires us to understand curriculum as a broad concept which involves
various educational components and people involved in the educational processes. After all,
contents, instruction, input and output inseparably construct daily teaching and learning. We also
conceive school curriculum as a framework for guiding teachers (Comfort, 1990). In short, the way
that we interpret curriculum influences our understanding of curriculum modification.Reisburg (1990)
lists examples of the modifications of content, such as teaching learning strategies, simplifying
concepts or reading levels, teaching different sets of knowledge and skills needed by students, and
setting up specific objectives and examples of modifications to instructional methods, including
reducing distractions, altering the pace of lessons, presenting smaller amounts of work, clarifying
directions, and changing input and response modes. All of these teaching events should be
considered as examples of curriculum modification.
For the purpose of this report, we have adopted the categorization of curriculum modification
suggested by King-Sears (2001). King-Sears identified four types of curriculum modification:(a)
accommodation, (b) adaptation, (c) parallel curriculum outcomes, and (d) overlapping curricula on a
continuum. This categorization represents the relation between modified curriculum and general
curriculum in terms of differences and similarities in educational input including content knowledge
and conceptual difficulty, educational output including educational goals, and methods of
instruction. The extent to which the modified curriculum differs from the general curriculum becomes
greater as educational practice moves from accommodation to overlapping curricula. For instance, in
accommodation, the only educational components which may differ from general curriculum are
instructional method and educational goals, whereas, in overlapping curricula, all componentsinput,
output, and instructional methods that students receivecan be totally different from those designed
in general curriculum.
As conceptualized in this continuum, curriculum modification that King-Sears suggests contains a
wide range of educational practices and shares the essence of the fore-mentioned definition of
curriculum modification; modified contents, instructions, and/or learning outcomes for diverse
student needs. Modifications identified by King-Sears, for example, range from an educational
practice of simply providing an audio book to some students who have reading difficulties during
reading lessons to an educational practice of having some special needs students work on individual
(IEP) goals, such as following directions, while they engage in general science lessons. Moreover,
these four types of curriculum modification, according to King-Sears, are the extensions of
curriculum enhancement within the process for teachers to determine the degree of accessibility of
their classroom students with disabilities. In other words, curriculum modification, in King-Sears'
view, is a suggested step to take when curriculum enhancement alone is not effective to achieve
objectives for inclusion.

King-Sears' clear categorization and analysis of the components of curriculum modification is

valuable for educators to capture the essence of curriculum modification. As stated above, her
categorization consists of a wide range of educational practices. Since curriculum modification is
practiced in numerous ways, it is important to broaden the definition rather than limiting to particular
events.
top

Components and Features

As noted above, the components of curriculum modification are well categorized by King-Sears
(2001) into four types: (a) accommodation, (b) adaptation, (c) parallel curriculum outcomes, and (d)
overlapping curricula. Switlick (1997) explains that the purpose of modifying curriculum is "to enable
an individual to compensate for intellectual, physical, or behavioral challenges" (p. 236) and to
create learning environments which "allow the individual to use existing skill repertoires while
promoting the acquisition of new skills and knowledge" (p. 236). We need to understand that these
are the purposes which underlie the four types of curriculum modification identified by King-Sears
(2001).
In the following section, brief explanations of each type of curriculum modification with examples
from actual classrooms are prepared. Actual educational practices reflecting modified curriculum
vary in many ways, modification occurs in various educational settings across diverse subject areas,
students, assignments, assessments, evaluations, and so on.Presenting examples
for all educational situations is beyond the scope of this report.Therefore, we selected a range of
examples across four types of curriculum modification with a special focus on the examples from
integrated general classrooms. For instance, the section regarding accommodation involves an
example of using assistive technology in writing class for students with learning disabilities, and an
example of using audio books for English Language Learners in a reading lesson. Likewise, various
settings (math, language arts, social studies, and science lessons) and learners; students with a
moderate to severe disabilities, as well as students identified as gifted and talented appear in the
examples presented across the four types of curriculum modification.
Following the description and examples of each curriculum modification type is a table illustrating
comparisons among four types of curriculum modification in relation to components modified and the
extent to which modified curricula differ from the general curriculum. The table helps us visually
recognize that, as we move forward from accommodation to overlapping curricula, focused
components shift from instruction-oriented to content-oriented, and that educational practices
reflecting modified curriculum become more distant from educational practices based on general
curriculum.

Accommodation
The term accommodation is used to mean a modification to the delivery of instruction or method of
student performance and does not change the content or conceptual difficulty of the curriculum (see
Table 1). Both teachers and students can play a role in the changes of instructional methods in order
to achieve the same intended instructional outcomes suggested in general curriculum. Examples of
accommodation are countless. Some include; incorporating different types of teaching devices and
techniques, such as use of audio or other formats as an alternative to print, technology, graphic
organizers, and pictorial representation; and changing the amount of input, time-frame for learning,
and levels of support for individual students' needs.
Among these examples, using assistive/adaptive technologies typically exemplify an accommodation
to general curriculum. Bray, Brown, & Green (2004) define assistive/adaptive technologies as
"content-free technologies" (p. 34) which does not address curriculum or promote specific learning,
but rather help students overcome inaccessibility due to individual differences. In an actual
classroom, a student with physical disabilities may use a computer input devices, such as a trackball
mouse which requires less hand movement or an alternate keyboard with extra large keys, to
complete his/her writing task. In this case, the content and difficulty level of tasks remain the same
as the tasks in which other students in the class engage. An accommodation through the use of

assistive/adaptive technologies allows students to complete their tasks required in general

curriculum which would be difficult to complete otherwise.
Another example of accommodation is making audio versions of books available for students who
are English Language Learners (ELL) and students with print disabilities when they engage in
reading sessions focusing on reading comprehension skills. Instead of providing the traditional
written or printed form of text, teachers can have these students work individually or in a small group
to read an assigned book with auditory support. Again, through this type of accommodation,
students with diverse needs can acquire same content knowledge as other students and move onto
the next stage of learning with them. In the case of ELLs, they can comprehend the text with audio
support and then participate in the follow-up activities with other classmates based on their
understanding of what was read. Frequently, teachers regard ELL students' developing language
proficiency as a disadvantage, which causes a necessary lag-behind (Valdes, 2002). As a result,
teachers may provide curriculum modification with more content-focused alteration, which simplifies
the content, may change the standards and goals, does not provide enough cognitive challenge and
academic stimulus, and does not help their acquisition of the English language. Although it is
important to understand that acquiring a second language, especially academic language, is not a
quick fix and takes many years of instruction (Cummins, 2000), teachers also need to know that
ELLs, like other general students, should receive an appropriate cognitive challenge with appropriate
conceptual difficulties and a sense of belonging to their class regardless of their developing
language proficiencies (Igoa, 1995). When used with the students with appropriate language
proficiency levels, an accommodation to general curriculum can be a powerful tool to support ELL
students' unique linguistic, academic, and social needs.
Switlick (1997) has listed other examples of accommodations, such as requiring completion of every
other word problem on a math worksheet, and providing for oral performance instead of written. As
we see in these examples, accommodation is not a change of educational input designed in general
curriculum, such as content knowledge and conceptual difficulty of the subjects. Rather,
accommodation is a modification of instructional methods intended to meet individual student's
needs of acquiring necessary input from lessons. The information that students receive remains the
same. However, an accommodation to curriculum modifies the way that students acquire and/or
respond to the information.
Another important point to add is that the intended goals of accommodated curriculum may change
from those of general curriculum depending on educational contexts. For instance, using an audio
book in a reading comprehension lesson creates an opportunity for students to use their listening
skills in addition to reading or decoding skills. If the students were English-speaking children with
reading difficulty who had already established English listening skills, the intended goals of
curriculum would remain the same as those in general curriculum.However, if the students were
ELLs who were still in the process of developing their listening skills, teachers could indicate an
additional goal for them (which is the development of listening skills). Thus, accommodation has a
flexibility of adjusting intended educational goals based on context.

Adaptations
Adaptation is a modification to the delivery of instructional methods and intended goals of student
performance that does not change the content but does slightly change the conceptual difficulty of
the curriculum (see Table 1). Adaptations usually require more teacher effort and time than simply
changing instructional methods or access as in an accommodation.An adaptation is a goal-driven
process: in order to decide on an adaptation to curriculum, teachers first need to specify intended
goals for individual students. Again, examples of adaptation abound, and include providing
differentiated activities, homework and evaluations, and using adapted or different instructional
materials and activities for individual students.
Adaptations in integrated general classrooms often occur when teachers differentiate instruction. For
instance, teachers can create writing lessons which meet individual student's unique needs by
having students work on adapted assignments. While some students are engaging in a writing

assignment individually, students with learning disabilities may work on their assignment in a small
group with teacher support. The teachers may also modify the content of the writing activity
depending on students' needs. While the teachers require some students to compose using the five
new vocabulary words from the lesson, the students with a learning disability may select three of the
5 new words from the lesson and make appropriate use of them in the context of their work. KingSears (2001) suggests that a variation of this type of lesson can be providing students with
disabilities fewer practice tasks. She also points out that reducing the amount of tasks seen in an
accommodated instruction should be differentiated from that provided in adapted instruction. On the
one hand, the accommodatedinstruction may modify the amount of tasks, for instance, teachers
provide only 5 math problems to students with math difficulties while others work on 10 problems
without changing the conceptual difficulty of the problems. On the other hand,
the adapted instruction involves a slight change in conceptual difficulty to meet students' needs.
In another example provided by King-Sears (2001), the math teacher may instruct a student with a
disability to work on mastering division of mixed fractions with like denominators while other students
work toward mastering division of mixed fractions with unlike denominators. In this case, the
conceptual difficulty that the students with a disability need to acquire slightly changes although the
content knowledge of mathematics, namely the concepts of divisions and fractions, remains
same. Switlick (1997) suggests other examples, including providing picture word cards for key words
in a story and using a calculator to complete a math assignment. Switlick also provides an
adaptation planning worksheet (Figure 9-1, p. 245, 1997) for teachers who are interested in
incorporating adaptation into their instruction.
Thus, adaptation involves not only the modification of instructional methods but also includes a slight
change in conceptual difficulties introduced to students. Like accommodation, adaptation occurs
within the same learning contents. In many cases, adaptation should be practiced when teachers
determine that a student is able to learn the same content knowledge as other students if a slight
change is made to modify conceptual difficulty.

Parallel Curriculum Outcomes/Parallel Instruction

Parallel curriculum outcomes are modifications to the delivery of instruction and intended goals of
student performance. Like adaptation, parallel curriculum outcomes do not change the content
knowledge and the underlying principle of the educational goals for individual students. The
difference between adaptation and parallel curriculum is the extent of change in conceptual
difficulty. While adaptation slightly changes the conceptual difficulty of curriculum, parallel curriculum
outcomes involves a significant change of conceptual difficulty (see Table 1).
Similar to accommodation and adaptation, the practice of parallel curriculum outcomes depends on
the educational contexts and individual student needs. There is a range of application to this type of
modification and students with varying learner characteristics and abilities benefit from parallel
curriculum outcomes. For example, many students identified as gifted and talented require more
advanced or challenging conceptual difficulties in instruction and application. Therefore, the
significant change of conceptual difficulty seen in parallel curriculum outcomes often suits the
curriculum modification for these students. Many educators synonymously use the term enrichment,
with the term parallel curriculum outcomes when addressing such curriculum modifications.
Students with varying disabilities also benefit from the parallel curriculum type of modification.For
instance, King-Sears (2001) described a classroom situation in which most students develop science
projects that include analysis of cause-and-effect problems. In the same classroom, a student with
multiple disabilities may engage in a science project with a focus on one experimental process. In
this way, teachers are able to include the student with multiple disabilities in the same content lesson
as all students and support the student with disabilities so that she/he may achieve the appropriate
educational goals. Other examples suggested by Switlick (1997) include providing special needs
students in English/Language Arts classes a paper with all or part of a story and asking them to
locate target words or letters while other students are reading the story; having students with special
needs complete worksheets for counting from 1 to 10 while other students are assigned a math

worksheet on fractions; and allowing some students to orally report three things remembered from
listening to others reading the newspaper in citizenship/current events class, while other students
read aloud and answer a series of questions.
Thus, parallel curriculum outcomes do not change the broader content knowledge but significantly
change the conceptual difficulties for students. The educational practices categorized under parallel
curriculum outcomes closely connect to what Switlick (1997) described as a concept of "partial
participation" (p. 236) an underlying concept associated with modification. Switlick explains that
we fundamentally believe that it is appropriate for diverse students, especially students with severe
disabilities, to participate in the general education classroom even though they may not acquire the
same level of conceptual difficulties as other classmates, and that teachers can pursue this practice
by applying parallel outcomes/instruction curriculum modifications. As Switlick indicates, the use of
parallel curriculum outcomes is a modification which "goes a step beyond what is usually considered
when adapting instruction" (p. 244). Modifying the conceptual difficulty of curriculum in a significant
way creates a learning environment in which we can broaden the idea of inclusion to a wider range
of diversity among students.

Overlapping Curricula/Overlapping Instruction

Overlapping curricula is a modification to curriculum such that the modification
createsoverlapping or common goals for learning outcomes of diverse students. Overlapping
curricula is not a direct modification of general curriculum. Rather, it is an incorporation of specific
individual goals and expectations for students with diverse needs. Teachers can practice overlapping
curricula when the specific goals are expected to be accomplished in general
education. Overlapping curricula enables the diverse students to be involved in general education
curriculum activities and promotes the idea of partial participation. There are various ways to
practice overlapping curricula. In most cases, the components of curriculum, such as background
knowledge, conceptual difficulties, and methods of instruction, for special needs students are
designed very differently from those for general education students (see Table 1). Practicing
overlapping curricula sometimes requires teachers to creatively design and provide shared
educational activities, such as cooperative learning and peer-mediated interventions. In such shared
activities, the educational goals and expectations for the students with diverse needs overlap with
those for general education students.
While the students with diverse needs are learning to achieve their individual educational goals, for
instance vocational and social skills development, they also are able to be involved in the same
content lesson with their general education classmates. Based on the modified intended educational
goals, educational input (content knowledge and conceptual difficulty) and instructional methods
become different from those designed in general curriculum. King-Sears described an example in
which a student with emotional disturbance may have an IEP goal to develop appropriate
interactions with peers in a small group setting. Although this student may never engage in social
studies activities at the same conceptual levels as other students or never develop content
knowledge in the subject, teachers can provide him/her with an appropriate task to complete in a
small group in order to create an opportunity to learn how to interact with others. When the general
curriculum also focuses on students' interaction as one of the intended goals for the social studies
lesson, there is an overlap evident between the intended goals for students with special needs and
those for regular students. In short, this type of modification allows students with specific needs to be
involved in general education curriculum activities while accomplishing different curriculum goals.
The following example depicted in Switlick (1997) clearly describes a classroom practice using
overlapping curricula. The student, Jamie, in this example has objectives to make eye contact and
acknowledge an interpersonal interaction using audible sounds:
Jamie has a tray on his wheelchair. He holds on his tray the manipulatives students are using during
math class. As students pick up their materials from Jamie's tray, they speak to Jamie. To meet his
instructional goal, Jamie should look at each student and acknowledge the greeting with an audible

sound. The same interaction is duplicated as students exchange materials and return materials
(p. 246).
Thus overlapping curricula provides Jamie the opportunity to practice appropriate social interactions
with peers in the general classroom setting. At the same time, his peers also benefit from the social
interaction and are able to prepare their manipulatives and engage in a math activity efficiently with
Jamie's help.
Like other types of curriculum modification, accommodation, adaptation, and parallel curriculum
outcomes, examples of overlapping curricula can be innumerable. Additional examples from the
work by Switlick (1997) include having a student with a severe physical disability use an adaptive
switch to activate an audio recorder and work on holding up his head for increased amounts of time
while other students are recording a rough draft of a play they are creating, and having the same
student make sure everyone in the class has a test tube and a worksheet while other students are
engaging in a chemistry experiment in small groups.
As we see in these examples, the educational practices in which the student with special needs
engage for their intended goals and those in which general education students engage for their
intended goals may create mutual benefit due to the overlap evident in their goals.Through applying
overlapping curricula to general curriculum, teachers are able to create a learning environment
where students with special needs play meaningful roles in a classroom and where not only students
with special needs learn from being included in a general classroom but also the general education
peers have an opportunity to learn and receive supports from the students with special needs.
The following table contains the four types of curriculum modification features described above. The
first column contains a list of the modifications and the top row contains curriculum components;
content knowledge, conceptual difficulty, intended goals, and method of instruction. If a modification
is evident in certain components, the table shows the extent of modification, for example, slightly or
significantly. This table serves as a summary for the ideas of curriculum modification and to learn the
characteristics of each type in order to select which type would be most beneficial to students.
Table 1.
Curriculum Components
Content
Knowledge
(input)

Types of
Modification

Conceptual
Difficulty (input)

Intended
Goals
(output)

Methods of
Instruction

Accommodation

Same as general Same as general

education
education
curriculum
curriculum

Same or
modified

Modified

Adaptation

Same as general
education
Slightly modified
curriculum

Modified

Modified

Parallel
Curriculum
Outcomes

Same as general
education
curriculum

Significantly
modified

Modified

Modified

Overlapping

Different

Different

Modified

Different

These explanations of four types of curriculum modification with the visual support of the table help
to illustrate how the extent of changes to curriculum varies among the four types of curriculum
modification categorized by King-Sears (2001) and Switlick (1997). As described, the extent of
change shifts from less to more as we move forward from accommodation through overlapping
curricula. The demands for teacher time and energy for planning and conducting lessons may also
increase as we shift from modifying instructional methods for accommodated curriculum to creating

individual lessons for overlapping curricula with application in general education lessons with
overlapping educational goals.
Although it seems to be true that accommodation is a less elaborate type of curriculum modification
and that overlapping curricula is the most elaborate type contrarily, the degree to which each
modification type is different from general curriculum does not correspond to the degree of supports
needed by individual students. In other words, an accommodation can be an excellent tool to instruct
students with severe disabilities who need extensive amounts of support, whereas students with
minor disabilities may benefit from overlapping curricula depending on each individual student's
educational goals and the instructional episode.
The educational practices for all types of curriculum modification are as diverse as the educational
contexts, including subjects, settings, and students. In fact, classroom teachers may practice
different types of curriculum modification in a combined manner. In other words, we can easily
imagine that a student who benefits from adapted curriculum may also receive positive supports
from other types of curriculum modification. Also, in the classroom where differentiated instruction is
practiced, various modifications may take place concurrently.
Categorizing each type of curriculum modification is extremely useful for teachers to understand the
nature and potentialities of curriculum modification and to incorporate their understandings into
actual classroom instructions. However, we should keep in mind that the success of modified
curriculum requires teacher flexibility in instructional practices and broad views of curriculum
itself. The next section will introduce literature providing empirical evidence of curriculum
modification for diverse students.
top

Evidence of Effectiveness
The empirical evidence regarding the effectiveness of curriculum modification is available in many
studies. The following sections includes the literature review of 13 empirical studies issued between
1989 and May, 2004, which report the impact of curriculum modification on various areas of interest,
and 4 conceptual studies relevant to the empirical findings. For the purpose of this report, which is to
display empirical evidences of effectiveness, our main focus is on the empirical findings and we use
conceptual studies to supplement the background of reviewed empirical studies. A total of 17 studies
were identified and then organized into three major categories by the areas of impact for which the
modified curriculum was designed: (a) modification designed for students' learning, (b) modification
designed for behavioral reasons, and (c) modification designed for inclusion. The majority of the
studies are the articles from major peer-reviewed journals, such as Academic Therapy, Bilingual
Research Journal, Behavioral Disorders, Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe
Handicaps, Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
Equity & Excellence in Education, Journal for Education of the Gifted, Gifted Child Quarterly, Journal
of Early Intervention, Teacher Educator, with a few exceptions from books.

Modifications Designed for Students' Learning

In 9 of 17 studies reviewed, the authors focused on demonstrated effectiveness of modifications
designed for student learning, which include 7 empirical studies and 2 conceptual papers. This
section contains three subsections based on the types of diverse students, namely general
education students, English Language Learners, and gifted and talented students.

Modification for General Education Students

We found 2 empirical studies comparing the effect of modified curriculum to that of regular
curriculum on general students' learning performance, including engagement, motivation, and
achievement as well as teacher perceptions regarding the use of modified curriculum (Tieso,
2001). The number of studies focusing on the effectiveness of curriculum modification for general
education students alone is limited since a majority of studies in this topic target student populations
in need of modification to existing general curriculum. Tieso's (2001) qualitative study involved 12
mathematics teachers from different school sites (2 teachers used regular textbook curriculum, 10

teachers used the modified curriculum). From these classrooms, 6 students in grade 5 through 8
were selected for interviews. During the 3 weeks of data collection, Tieso investigated teacher and
student perceptions regarding the necessity and effectiveness of modified math units and the
academic achievements of the students after receiving the modified units. The curriculum was
redesigned so modified units would provide enhanced learning objectives, authentic resources and
assessment techniques, engaging lesson introductions, and include an emphasis on the major
principles and concepts of the discipline. The existing units of study were carefully aligned with
constructivist teaching and learning activities and the teachers received trainings in curriculum
modification. Data were collected through individual interviews, focus groups, observations, and
examinations of students' artifacts.
The authors reported that teachers perceived the modified unit as more effective in motivating and
engaging students. The modified unit also seemed to meet the needs of all students by challenging
the students and posing high expectations. Based on these results, the author's indicate that
students believed the modified units were more fun, complex, engaging, and challenging than a
regular textbook unit. Additionally, the students showed pride in completing their final projects. In
summary, the author stated that teachers and students preferred the modified unit, which involved
hands-on activities, the infusion of writing into the math curriculum, the opportunity of collaboration
among students, and the comprehensive and authentic nature of the final project.
A second study on curriculum modification by Moon & Callahan (2001) researched the effectiveness
of curriculum modification on general education student's learning achievement.In this 2-year
longitudinal study, a mixed method, curriculum modification was one of the interventions designed
for a project called Support To Affirm Rising Talent (START). The subjects included 273 elementary
students with diverse backgrounds in terms of race, ethnicity, and socio-economic status. The
students were first or second graders from 16 schools in an urban school district and more than a
half of them were from low-socioeconomic environments. Curriculum modification in this study
followed a constructivist approach, which emphasized a student-centered approach in
modification. Curriculum modification involved various components of learning in daily classroom
activities. Some modification practices included organizing lessons relevant to student's lives,
considering a pattern of classroom interaction, using materials familiar to students from varied
cultural backgrounds. During the implementation of this curriculum modification, student's academic
achievement was measured using a standardized norm-referenced measure in basic skills
(vocabulary, reading, language arts, and mathematics).
The author's summarized their results as follows. In combination with other interventions
incorporated in the START project, such as family outreach program and mentorship, curriculum
modification positively affected the improvement of students' academic achievement, especially
students identified as at-risk for academic failure. Students' identified as at-risk were on grade level
by the end of the project and the effectiveness of intervention was evident one year after the project
was completed.
Thus, these two empirical studies showed some positive effects of curriculum modification for
students' attitudes towards learning and their academic achievement. Considering the scarceness of
empirical studies emphasizing the potential effectiveness of curriculum modification on all students,
the significance of their studies is in their focus on diverse students in general education
classrooms. Although Tieso's study did not discuss the diversity among the subjects, the subjects in
the study by Moon et al., (2001) involved diverse students with various ethnic, cultural, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Their findings suggest that, when the design is student-centered and the
practice is individually-focused, curriculum modification is effective for all students regardless of their
backgrounds. We are encouraged by these promising studies. However such a small sample is
inconclusive and we recommend additional research to be conducted with a focus on student groups
who require modified curricular units to access general curriculum.

Modification for English Language Learners

We found 2 empirical studies (Buxton, 1999; Fradd, Lee, Sutman & Saxton, 2001) and a conceptual
study (Sparks, 2000) specific to students identified as English Language Learners (ELLs). The
researchers focusing on curriculum modification for ELLs suggested that integrating students' unique
linguistic and cultural backgrounds into curriculum is a key to make modified curriculum function
successfully.
The first study was designed to demonstrate that the effectiveness of a modified science curriculum
on the accessibility to inquiry-based science curriculum for ELLs as well as regular English-speaking
students (Fradd et al., 2001). Curriculum modification, in this study, was a part of two large scale
science projects, the Promise Project and The Science for All Project.
Fradd's Promise Project, involved 502 students in grade 4 with different linguistic and cultural
backgrounds, including bilingual Hispanic, Haitian, and English speaking children, and their teachers
who shared students' language and culture. The researchers and teachers modified the curriculum
to incorporate more open inquiry; as a result, students' academic achievement reflected in test
scores improved. Teachers' insights contributed to identify the transitions and instructional materials
required to move to the modified open inquiry. Teacher's knowledge of their students' language and
culture also helped to identify students' specific needs.
The Science for All Project, was a 3-year longitudinal project involving 900 students in grade 4 and
their teachers. In this project, the science curriculum was modified such that inquiries would develop
through a continuum of experiences ranging from scaffolded explicit instructions to student-initiated
inquiries. The process of curriculum adaptation involved the integrating specific linguistic
components for the language and literacy development of ELL students. For instance, the modified
curriculum incorporated the learning of specific language functions, such as describing, reporting, or
explaining, and the promotion of vocabulary development in both English and the students' native
languages. The modified curriculum also involved providing instructions in multiple representational
formats, such as drawings, charts, tables, graphs, and computer-developed simulations. Such
modified curriculum contributed to develop inquiry-based science curricula for the ELLs and to
increase academic achievement. The authors stated that "despite contextualized learning through
hands-on activities, the benefits of science inquiry for ELLs may be limited without a concomitant
focus on literacy development" (p. 493).
Although the major focus of this study was on the modification of materials, the results suggested
that teachers' perceptions regarding the effectiveness of curriculum modification shifted from
uncertain to preferable, and that such a positive shift of teacher perceptions would affect the
successful practice of modified inquiries. This author also suggests that teachers can modify
curriculum in a particular subject area with the input obtained from different subject areas. A crucial
point is for teachers to consider fulfilling students' needs using whatever available input from the
learning contexts. The results of this study indicate that the ELL students' academic success in
science was closely connected to their language and literacy learning, and that those students with
diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds benefit from the modified curriculum when their unique
linguistic needs are integrated in curriculum. Existing modification strategies or instructional
strategies identified as effective for a wide range of students may not support ELL students when
their language proficiencies are not taken into account.
In another study, Buxton, reported that integrating ELLs' cultural backgrounds is a key point for
teachers to consider when modifying science curriculum (Buxton, 1999). In this 3 year longitudinal
study, the researcher examined the effectiveness of modified science curriculum designed within a
project called the Science Theatre Project. The modified science curriculum involved a computerbased instructional methodology with an inquiry-based and student-generated computer
models. The purpose of this study was to examine how modified curriculum affected the students'
learning and understanding of science inquiries and interactions. The subjects involved 26 students
in grades 2 and 3, including Spanish-English bilingual children and English monolingual children in a
two-way bilingual program. The underlying assumption of this study was that personal
understandings of how science is practiced play an important role in students' academic success in
science, and this assumption is evident in Buxton's statement, "the cultural and linguistic

backgrounds that many of these students bring with them to school stress methods of argument,
proof, and understanding of the natural world that are significantly different from the logico-deductive
western epistemology that has given rise to modern science" (p. 148).
Qualitative data were collected through ethnographic field notes, classroom artifacts, and individual
interviews with students and teachers. The results showed that the use of computer models was
beneficial for the students' developing conceptual abilities, and that the change of students'
conceptual abilities was essential for the creation of successful models. The significance of this
study is the emphasis on student's and teacher's roles. Buxton emphasized that curriculum
modification needs to be student-centered in a way that the content of modification is connected to
students' own lives, and that students need to understand the value of their prior experiences and to
help teachers tailor the instruction. Only when cultural backgrounds of ELL students are
acknowledged and integrated in curriculum modification, they will have a learning opportunity to
comfortably use the language of science as a discourse of engagement in activities and to engage in
content-based interactions with others.
The ideas from a conceptual study done by Sparks (2000) reinforces the importance of integrating
students' cultural backgrounds into curriculum modification. In his study, Sparks specifically focused
on Native American students. He suggests that curriculum can be enhanced through a process of
incorporating Native American students' culture in the classroom curriculum, what he calls "cultural
infusion" (p.263). Cultural infusion is a way that students do not change their cultural beliefs but
adapt to specific situations and acquire necessary coping skills. Based on his teaching and research
experiences, Sparks asserts that school failure is less likely to occur and student's self-esteem
increases when their culture is successfully incorporated into the modified curriculum. He suggests
that, for the culture-specific approach for curriculum modification, educators need to consider the
following principles: (a) learning about student's lives, including specific tribe culture and individual
family lives, (b) building the curriculum on positive images of student's culture not on negative
stereotypes, (c) developing cultural sensitivity, and (d) learning about the characteristics of Native
American learners, such as their visual presentations of knowledge, their lives in a highly oral
culture, their preference of simultaneous processing rather than sequential processing, their
preference of hands-on technique, their cooperative rather than competitive learning environments,
their concepts of time and space, and so on.
Thus, the focus among the studies regarding effectiveness of curriculum modification for ELL
students are on the importance of integrating student's linguistic and cultural backgrounds into a
modification process. A common suggestion evident among these studies is that teachers need to
understand the characteristics and specific needs of particular groups when determining how
curriculum should be modified. In addition, to adopt the modification practices benefiting all students,
such as student-centered and individual-focused, teachers need to apply their knowledge of specific
linguistic and cultural needs of ELLs. It is important for teachers not to stereotype the needs of a
specific group; however, it is also crucial for teachers to learn that curriculum modification does not
meet its success without special attention paid to unique needs of students: language proficiency
and cultural backgrounds in the case for ELL students.

Modification for Gifted and Talented Students

We found 3 empirical studies (Olenchak, 1990; Olenchak & Renzulli, 1989; Reis, Westberg,
Kulikowich & Purcell, 1998) and a conceptual study (Johnson, 2000), which focused on the
effectiveness of curriculum modification designed as a part of a school-wide program for students
identified as gifted and talented, the Schoolwide Enrichment Model (SEM). Johnson (2000)
described the concept of SEM in his conceptual study. According to Johnson, the SEM has three
components: (a) organizational components which include schoolwide enrichment team of teachers
and parents, (b) structural components which include the regular curriculum, enrichment clusters,
and a continuum of special services, and (c) instructional components which include the delivery of
enriched instruction and teacher trainings. Curriculum modification with respect to these components
focuses on student's strengths and interests and includes teacher-directed modification of specific

knowledge, methodology, and application in the prescribed curriculum. The components to be

modified include instructional objectives and strategies, content, processes, product, and affect.
Johnson introduced two techniques of curriculum modification: (a) curriculum compacting, which is
"the elimination of content that a student has previously mastered or to streamlining content so that it
commensurates with a student's level of motivation and ability" (p. 52) and (b) integrated
instructional themes which is a cross-subject thematic integration of curriculum based on student's
interests in their total talent portfolios. The underlying ideas of curriculum modification in the SEM is
that the effective curriculum emphasizes both content and process, develops inquiry, and establishes
the interconnectedness of knowledge and skills.
We found three studies which examined the empirical validity of the SEM. (Olenchak, 1990;
Olenchak et al., 1989; Reis et al., 1998). First, Olenchak et al., (1989) found that a year-long
application of SEM to 1,698 elementary school students (K6) was effective on positive changes in
student and teacher attitudes toward overall learning and the concept of gifted education. In this
study, the researchers used a series of qualitative research methods to investigate the change
in: students' creativity; the students', principal's teachers', and parents' attitudes toward learning; the
evidence of school-wide change resulted from the SEM. The qualitative methods included
interviews, observations, logs, and analyses of students' products. Curriculum compacting following
the basic principles described by Johnson (2000) was employed in the SEM process. The authors
report that students' creative productivity increased and that there were significantly positive
changes in attitudes towards overall learning and gifted education among the participants. Thus, the
authors demonstrated the effectiveness of the SEM for not only gifted and talented students but for
other students in a school-wide level. This study also contributed to the notion that the concept of
curriculum compacting in gifted education needs to be widely acknowledged as a benefit to diverse
students as well. After experiencing the SEM, one of the principals in this study commented, "having
much more impact on the school than ever before because kids, regardless of scores and grades,
can possibly achieve high quality work in an area they love" (p. 43).
Similarly, Olenchak (1990) reported that curriculum modification provided in the SEM positively
affected attitudes toward learning in a study with 1,935 middle school students. In this two-year
longitudinal study, Olenchak implemented a mixed research method to investigate the extent
students' attitudes towards learning process varied when he compared different affective variables,
such as grade level, classroom teachers, learning climate, instructional styles, and enrollment in
SEM program, and what aspects of SEM students perceive most positively, and what are the
differences between SEM and other school programs.
A qualitative regression analysis was used to investigate students' attitudes and the relations
between their attitudes and other variables, while a qualitative analysis revealed student's
perceptions of SEM. Over all, the authors reported results in which all students developed more
positive attitudes towards learning through being enrolled in the SEM, and that the students found
clear differences between SEM and regular school programs in a way that they were able to engage
in more teacher-supported school activities and to pursue self-selected interest-based studies. Thus,
the author raised questions regarding the limited views on gifted education, such as the idea that
gifted education is only for the specific group of talented students, and also revealed that SEM would
benefit all students in schools while the gifted and talented students continue to achieve their goals
in general education classrooms.
Another empirical study showed the effectiveness of curriculum compacting on the achievement test
scores of gifted and talented students (Reis et al., 1998). The difference between this study and
other two empirical studies described above is in its specific focus on curriculum compacting. While
the other two studies described the effectiveness of curriculum modification implemented as a part of
a large program, the SEM, the researchers in this study investigated the issues regarding curriculum
compacting itself, such as the differences in academic achievement of students who received
curriculum compacting and that of students who did not.
The subjects of this study involved 336 gifted and talented students in grades 2 to 6 from various
school settings, including rural, suburban and urban settings. Curriculum compacting in this study

involved eliminating 40 to 50% of already learned curricula for these gifted and talented
students. The ITBS in students' grades and the same assessment in one grade higher were used to
assess student's academic achievement in language arts and mathematics. Reis et al., (1998) found
that compacting curriculum did not have negative effect on student's academic achievement as the
results showed that there was no significant differences in academic achievement between the
students who received curriculum compacting and those who did not. In other words, the students
who received curriculum compacting performed as well as the other students who received standard
curriculum in achievement tests. Although the findings of this study did not assure the long-term
effects of curriculum compacting on student's learning achievement, they did contribute to reducing
teachers' fears about negative impact of eliminating contents from existing curriculum.
All of these studies found the effectiveness of curriculum modification represented as curriculum
compacting. Two of 3 studies (Olenchak, 1990; Olenchak et al., 1989) were large-scaled longitudinal
investigations and all studies focused on the investigations in a school-wide level. There are some
significant contributions that these studies can offer to our understandings of effective curriculum
modifications. First, considering the fact that more studies regarding curriculum modification have
been conducted in smaller scale studies, such as case studies and class-wide investigations, this
area of study focusing on gifted and talented students and the SEM contribute significantly to the
field by presenting the empirical evidence collected from large samples and school-wide
settings. Second, when we understand the SEM as an application of gifted education to the general
education classrooms, these studies provide the rationales to go beyond the limited perception of
gifted education and implement the SEM for all students. The findings of these studies expand the
potentialities of an educational practice which was originally designed for a specific group of
students. The limitation found in these studies includes their categorization of students. Besides
gifted and talented students, the researchers tend to categorize other students as simply others in a
control group. Further research is needed to investigate the effectiveness of SEM and curriculum
compacting through focusing on specific groups or individual students with unique needs.
The empirical studies reviewed in this section, Modification for Student's Learning, demonstrated the
effectiveness of curriculum modification on learning achievement and perceptions of students with
diverse linguistic, cultural, ethnic, academic skills, and socio-economic backgrounds. In contrast to
the fact that many teachers are practicing curriculum modification formally and informally in their
everyday classroom teachings, a small number of empirical studies provide evidence for the
effectiveness. We need more empirical studies, which examine the effectiveness of curriculum
modification in a wider variety of educational settings with a wide range of students (e.g., grade,
ability, culture, and ethnicity).

Modifications Designed for Behavioral Reasons

Five of 15 studies demonstrated effectiveness in students' behavior management (Clarke, Dunlap,
Foster-Johnson, Childs, Wilson, White & Vera, 1995; Dunlap, Foster-Johnson, Clarke, Kern &
Childs, 1995; Dunlap, Kern-Dunlap, Clarke & Robbins, 1991; Kern, Bambara & Fogt, 2002; Kern,
Childs, Dunlap, Clarke & Falk, 1994). In this area of study, a group of researchers have conducted a
series of studies to replicate and extend research methods and findings.The common focus of
curriculum modification in these studies is incorporating student's interests and choice into
curriculum.
Researchers conducting four empirical studies (Clarke et al., 1995; Dunlap et al., 1995; Dunlap et
al., 1991; Kern et al., 1994) reported that modified curriculum with incorporated students' personal
interests was effective on managing student behavior. In addition to employing effective curriculum
modification in these studies, they also used pre-intervention assessments of functional analysis and
functional assessment to determine what the student's special needs and interests were to most
effectively modify learning outcomes for the students.Based on the analyses, the researchers set up
situations in which the students were expected to demonstrate more appropriate
behaviors. Classroom teachers, then, implemented modified activities, assignments, instructions,
and contents in their classrooms. For example, in the study conducted by Clarke et al., (1995), the

focus was on the disruptive behaviors of a participant during handwriting assignment, which required
the student to copy pages from a traditional handwriting book. A comprehensive process of
functional assessment was conducted to investigate problem behaviors and the student's interests
through observations, interviews with teachers and the student, and direct discussions with the
student. As a result, the authors identified Nintendo as the student's preferred leisure activity and
substituted a handwriting activity requiring him to copy rules from a Nintendo game booklet for the
conventional handwriting assignment. As we can see in this process, a functional analysis and a
functional assessment have their advantages in that all information is from actual individual students
and lives inside and outside classrooms.
In the four studies reviewed in the following section, functional analysis and functional assessment
were used repeatedly. Outcomes from the functional analysis and functional assessment became
the foundations of teachers' decisions on designing curriculum modification. In each of these studies,
the authors reported that considering student's personal interests played a pivotal role when
designing curriculum modification, and simultaneously emphasized that practicing a functional
analysis and a functional assessment were effective tools for identifying student interests and
designing curriculum modifications. The following paragraphs describe research findings from each
of these four studies which used a functional analysis and a functional assessment.
First, Dunlap et al., (1991) found that the behaviors of a student with severe emotional disturbance
and multiple disabilities improved when teachers implemented the modified curriculum based on the
results from a functional assessment of the participant's behaviors, preferred physical movement,
and choices. This case study involved a twelve-year-old female student, Jill, with severe emotional
disturbance and a range of disabilities including mental retardation and ADD. Based on five weeks of
a detailed and comprehensive functional assessment, the researchers and teachers hypothesized
some of the optimal conditions in which Jill may demonstrate more appropriate behaviors. These
conditions were: learning through more large motor activities and less fine motor and academic
requirements, engaging in the activities resulting in concrete and preferred outcomes, and having
some choice regarding those activities. In short, the researchers hypothesized that, if the curriculum
was based on Jill's interests and if it created concrete outcomes she valued, her behavior would
improve. Curriculum was revised and modified based on the guideline reflecting the hypotheses and
was implemented during both academic and non-academic activities for a six-month period. The
authors reported that during the intervention period with the modified curriculum, Jill's disruptive
behavior and inappropriate vocalizations decreased, and on-task behavior and appropriate social
interactions increased. The researchers concluded that functional assessment process and
curriculum modification were found to be efficient to reduce Jill's severe behavior problems.
Second, Dunlap et al., (1995) also found that modified curriculum based on the results from
individual functional assessment helped students with severe emotional behavioral challenges
improve their behaviors, productivity, and task-completion. This short-term case study involved three
students aged between 9 and 13 who had severe emotional and behavioral challenges.The
researchers and teachers identified the students' interests and determined functional/concrete
outcomes through individual functional assessment, including interview, observation, and brief
probe. They then designed modified tasks and instructions based on the functional/concrete
outcomes reflecting students' interests. For instance, the functional assessment revealed that one of
the participants, Jerry, enjoyed sharing snacks with others, and the researchers determined that the
functional outcome was an assembly task reflecting his interests. The modified task derived from this
functional outcome was for him to engage in a multi-step assembling process of preparing cracker
sandwiches with peanut butter and jelly for himself and his classmates. This modified task
substituted for Jerry's previous task of assembling pens.
Overall, the researchers reported results that each student engaged in less problem behavior when
they received modified curriculum. Productivity and the rate of task completion increased as well as
the students' affect showed a positive change after the intervention. Dunlap et al., (1995) concluded
that tasks and activities can be modified through providing different variables, such as materials,
response requirements, outcomes, and familiarity. They also emphasized that these variables in

students' social contexts and the combinations of such variables play a key role in the process of an
effective curriculum modification.
In the third study found, the authors reported similar results as Dunlap et al., (1991) and Dunlap et
al., (1995). Clarke et al., (1995) found that curriculum modified to incorporate students' interests
were associated with reductions in inappropriate behaviors and an increase in task
productivity. Importantly, the researchers used a functional assessment to determine the students'
interests and modified tasks. Their study involved four boys with severe emotional and behavioral
disturbance and other disabilities, such as autism and ADHD. The data were collected over a fiveweek period in the student's specialized classrooms. Based on the results from functional
assessment, the researchers provided the students with both standard assignments and interesting
assignments incorporating student's personal interests.
There were three dependent variables identified when measuring the effects of modified
curriculum: (a) disruptive and desirable behavior, (b) student productivity, and (c) social validity. The
researchers collected student behaviors data through classroom observation, audio and video
recording using a 15-second partial interval system. For students' productivity, the researchers
investigated the rate of performance and an amount of task completion within the scheduled
session. Questionnaires were used to examine the social validity of modified curriculum and were
completed by teachers and students. Clark and colleagues report that modifying curriculum through
using functional assessment and incorporating student's interests was effective in reducing student's
disruptive behaviors and in promoting task productivity. The questionnaire results also indicated that
there was a consistent positive difference among the subjects for the assignment created based on
student interests in comparison to the conventional assignment.
The fourth study which used functional assessment was a case study conducted by Kern and his
colleagues (1994). The researchers found that functional assessment of a student's behavior, the
hypotheses developed through the assessment, and the guideline for curriculum modification
reflecting the hypotheses contributed to the effective practice of modified instructions and
assignments in English, math, and spelling classes for a student with emotional and behavioral
challenges. The student's on-task behavior increased when modified curriculum took place. In this
case study, the participant was an 11-year-old boy, Eddie, with emotional and behavioral challenges
and unique to this study, above average cognitive and communication skills.
After a comprehensive functional assessment, five curricular variables were identified and
hypotheses were developed according to the functional assessments. The researchers hypothesized
that Eddie's on-task behavior increases when engaged in activities that do not require excessive
amounts of handwriting, problem-solving skills, multiple brief tasks, when reminded to attend to his
work, and when provided with the option of working in a study carrel.Based on these hypotheses,
the researchers modified curriculum used in Eddie's English, math, and spelling classes. Curriculum
modification included the manipulation of "several curricular variables related to the content, length,
and mode used to perform tasks" (p. 17, Kern et al., 1994).
During the 8 weeks of intervention period, Eddie's on-task behavior was recorded and a selfreported activity rating form was used. As a result, Eddie's on-task behavior increased when he
received modified curriculum in all academic subjects. In addition, his teacher reported substantial
improvements in work completion. Also, Eddie preferred the revised curriculum to standard
curriculum. Kern et al., (1994) emphasized that increased individualization, such as incorporating
students' interests in curriculum, contributes to not only the intended goals for an individual student
but potentially to other educational goals as well. In Eddie's case, teachers can expect that the
reduction of undesirable behaviors resulted from curriculum modification would positively influence
his academic progress.
Similar results to the four studies described above were reported by Kern et al., (2002) without a
formal use of functional analysis/assessment. Their study reported that modifying curriculum through
incorporating student's interests into an instruction increased the engagement of students with
severe emotional disturbance and decreased their destructive behavior. The subjects of this study

were 6, 13 and 14 year old boys. All participants attended a university-affiliated private school for
students with severe behavioral challenges.
The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of modified curriculum which provided
choice-making opportunities and high-interest activities simultaneously across all students in the
class. The modified science curriculum included choice-making, both individual and group choices,
and high interest activities. For instance, students were allowed to choose one of two different
activities, such as an experiment checking air pollution experiment or one about the beginnings of
land pollution. High-interest activities were determined by teachers' previous teaching experiences
with the students and informal assessments. The researchers recorded the change in student's
behaviors in two phases, a baseline phase with traditional science curriculum and an intervention
phase with the modified science curriculum. Students' engagement and classroom behaviors were
measured. In addition, the researchers examined students' opinions about curriculum modification
by having students complete class evaluation sheets.
Kern et al., (2002) report that student engagement increased and destructive behavior decreased
when they received the modified science curriculum. Also, the ratings of student preference for the
lessons employing curricular modifications were slightly higher than baseline condition. The
classroom teachers reported overall satisfaction with all aspects of the intervention. The significance
of this study are results suggesting curriculum modification at the classroom level resulted in equally
positive outcomes as the previous studies at the individual level.
Thus, results of these studies indicate that, with formal or informal assessment of student's interests
and behavioral issues, curriculum modification created flexibility through which teachers may create
more appropriate learning contexts for their students with emotional and behavioral challenges. The
flexibilities in the modified curriculum evident in these studies incorporated student interests and
providing choices. These modifications were found to be effective to improve behavioral issues for
students' with various types of disabilities and cognitive challenges.
One of the limitations of these studies was research design. These studies took place in the special
programs designed specifically for the students with emotional and behavioral challenges, and there
were no control groups with which to compare results. Therefore, the generalizability of the results to
other educational settings, such as integrated classrooms, is less clear. However, there is
also strength in their research design. Significantly, the researchers in these studies obtained data
not in controlled laboratory settings but in actual classrooms with the participants' teachers. In all
studies, teachers implemented modified activities, assignments, instructions, and contents. Of
significance as well is that the student interests did not necessarily have to come from schooloriented topics but could come from outside school. Overall, these studies contributed to our
understanding of the effectiveness of curriculum modification to student's behavior
management. There seems to be a strong research trend to replicate and expand currently available
research results to further research efforts with different groups of students and different scales of
study. Future research in this field is expected to continue following this trend.

Modifications Designed for Inclusion

In this section we present one descriptive report by Salisbury, Mangino, Petrigala, Rainforth, Syryca
& Palombaro, (1994) with empirical evidence, regarding the effectiveness of curriculum modification
for inclusion (Salisbury et al., 1994). Salisbury and her colleagues found that modifying curriculum
based on student's IEP resulted in successful physical, social, and instructional inclusion of students
with mild to profound disabilities. This study reported a curriculum adaptation process used for 26
students across kindergarten through grade 4 in a suburban rural, blue collar community in south
central New York, but contained the results from only 3 students. These students had various types
of disabilities, including learning challenges, Hydrocephaly, a V-P shunt, severe mental retardation
and problem behaviors. The researchers investigated how the curriculum modification process could
be applied in mathematics, science, and language arts lessons in order to optimize the instructional
inclusion of students. Students' physical, social, and instructional inclusion was recorded through
staff observation, video, and teacher logs.

In order to design the modified curriculum, combinations of varying levels of content and objective
modifications were selected based on the individual student's needs. The researchers suggested
that, in the development of adaptation process, teachers need to be aware of the following 4
ideas: (a) the students' unique differences should be valued, (b) not all students need to be doing the
same thing at the same time, (c) team members or teachers contribute uniquely to the planning and
implementation of the process, and (d) all students should belong in the age-appropriate general
education class. They also assert that for successful curriculum modification, team members need to
understand students' IEPs, to plan in advance, expand their knowledge of curriculum, and
collaborate with one other.

Summary
There are a small number of empirical articles available investigating the effectiveness of curriculum
modification to students' inclusion. One of the possible reasons is that many researchers discuss
curriculum modification as a part of inclusion strategies. Also, many studies do not identify the
strategy use for inclusion clearly as a curriculum modification and were not reviewed for this paper.
The research studies reviewed in this section, Evidence of Effectiveness, showed the potentialities of
curriculum modification for various groups of students and teachers. With its flexibilities, curriculum
modification seems to be effective in countless ways. Therefore, stating all possible effective areas is
beyond the scope of this report. The similarity found among these studies was their emphases on
the constructive view of curriculum design with a student-centered approach. All studies suggested
that the process of an effective modification requires the deep analysis and assessment of students'
needs and their learning contexts. Students' needs play essential roles in the process of
modification. Clear evidence was seen in the approach of functional analysis/assessment. These
studies also suggested that important elements for curriculum modification, such as personal
interests, may be commonly considered for all students, whereas, others may be specific to certain
groups, such as the linguistic and cultural integration for ELLs.
Most importantly, the findings of these studies reported the effectiveness of curriculum modification
for various groups of students, including general education students, ELLs, gifted and talented
students, and students with a variety of disabilities. These findings suggested the potentialities of
curriculum modification for all students. In order for teachers to learn more about the empirical
evidence of curriculum modification in the educational settings similar to their own, further research
is needed with a wider range of educational contexts.
top

Factors Influencing Effectiveness

This section describes 4 factors influencing the effectiveness of curriculum modification. These
factors are: (a) individual needs, (b) subject specific needs, (c) teacher's roles and school support,
and (d) use of technology.

Individual Needs
When teachers modify curriculum, they first need to analyze and assess educational contexts and to
determine the method of modification based on individual student needs. In other words, the impetus
of curriculum modification derives from individual needs identified in actual educational
settings. Although the extent of curriculum modification widens from accommodation to overlapping
curricula, the extent does not represent the degree of effectiveness. Some students may benefit
from a minor modification rather than from the major changes regardless of student levels of
disability or needs. Also, applying curriculum modification for all students may actually have a
negative impact on the students who do not need it.
King-Sears (2001) suggested, for example, that teachers can practice curriculum modification when
curriculum enhancement alone is not effective. This, however, does not mean that curriculum
modification is more ideal for those who need greater supports to access general
curriculum. Curriculum enhancement may work better in some situations than curriculum
modification and vice versa. It is crucial to determine the way of approaching general curriculum

based on our understandings of students' unique needs and educational contexts.King-Sears stated
that, for those students who need further modifications, "the design and delivery of [modifications]
should be done in a manner that is thoughtful and considerate of individual student needs" (p. 11).
Both formal and informal analysis and assessment of individual needs are useful for teachers to
design effective curriculum modification. Learning about specific needs of particular groups of
children, in addition to identifying individual needs in actual classroom settings, may also be a good
starting point for teachers to plan curriculum modification.

Subject Specific Needs

Other contextual variables, such as the subject of learning, play important roles when determining
the modified goals for students. For instance, Cawley & Parmar (1990) suggest that, in the field of
mathematics, curriculum modification which benefits students with disabilities cannot "simply consist
of reduction in the quantity of information or the rate of presentation" (p.518). Instead, they assert
that curriculum modification should include curriculum reorganization, which focuses on the
conceptual contents and individual relevance of the curriculum including "mathematical reasoning,
understanding, and the ability to apply computation in real-life situations" (p. 518-19, Cawley et al.,
1990). Thus, the goals of modified curriculum are influenced not only by the particular student's
unique needs but also by the particular way of knowledge-building associated with content area.

Teachers' Roles and School Support

Teacher involvement may play a key role for successful curriculum modification. Comfort (1990)
acknowledged that practicing curriculum modification is a professional task and asserts that teachers
should be encouraged to take part in curriculum and instructional decision-making regardless of the
pressures of standardized testing movement built around the curriculum standards. Comfort
suggests 4 factors fostering curriculum modification: (a) a school system curriculum of appropriate
breadth and specificity, (b) the curriculum development and implementation processes that include
an integral role for teachers, (c) the expectations for greater collaborative relationship, and (d) the
provision of orientations to and encouragement of the practice of curriculum modification.
In order to meet these factors, teachers need an extensive amount of support at the school level,
including teacher training and professional development opportunities. MacMackin et al., (1997)
point out that many general and special education teachers are interested in meeting the diverse
needs of students, but do not know how to make appropriate modifications.
In reality, many teachers tend to make inconsistent and unsystematic use of curriculum modification
due to the lack of training and their doubts of ineffectiveness. Some teachers first tend to express
doubts about students' reactions to the modified units but are usually surprised at the positive
outcomes (Tieso, 2001). Further efforts are necessary to promote more school-wide support and
demonstrate empirical evidence of effective curriculum modification.

Use of technology
Technology contributes to the effectiveness of curriculum modification when used appropriately
(Birnbaum, 2001). Birnbaum suggests that the selection and the practice of technology, such as
software, computer games, the Internet, multimedia, and hypermedia need to follow the student's
IEP in relation to the general curriculum. Based on the individual students' needs, teachers can
select technologies with the features promoting active learning, experimentation, controlled
interactions, and independence. For instance, use of a computer game, Jumble, by the Tribune
Company, may be appropriate for ELLs or students with reading difficulties since the game provides
an opportunity to learn and enforce vocabulary. Thus, when modifying curriculum with technologies,
teachers need to remember that the features of technologies have to match individual students'
needs.
Teachers also need to recognize that computer experience may vary greatly among
students.Teachers need to consider what Bray et al., (2004) called digital divide"the gap between
those in society who have access to computer technology and those who do not" (p. 3). Again,
obtaining the information of individual students is a key to successfully incorporate technology use
into curriculum modification.

Overall, the 4 factors discussed above reflect how successfully teachers utilize their knowledge of
individual students, educational contexts and how effectively teachers and students select and use
available resources to meet the students' unique needs. As we see in Comfort's statement,
"curriculum modification is firmly grounded in the practical realities of the classroom" (1990, p. 398),
the effectiveness of curriculum modification is deeply influenced by many factors existing in actual
classrooms.
top

Applications to General Education Classroom Settings

Curriculum modification consists of potential benefits for not only the students who need special
support but also other students who learn in the same learning environment at any age levels. For
instance, general education students may benefit from modified curriculum designed for the students
with behavioral problems in general classroom settings. Through the increased positive behavior
and learning productivity of those students, other students in the same classroom may receive more
optimal learning environment and opportunities for mutual understandings and more interactions. In
another situation, integrating student's linguistic and cultural needs may provide other students with
the opportunity to learn new language and culture and may increase their multicultural awareness
and mutual respect. In short, when a particular group of or individual students in a classroom benefit
from curriculum modification, there is a great possibility that other students receive benefits as
well. The mutual benefit can be planned as a shared goal like in the process of overlapping
curricula. Or, such shared learning can naturally occur in our everyday teaching.
It is important for teachers to know that various factors affect the effectiveness of curriculum
modification. Teacher's understandings of students' backgrounds, resources and materials, and
school support are some of the important factors to consider. Professional development
opportunities are especially necessary in order for teachers to improve their skills and knowledge in
curriculum modification.
In actual classrooms, modifying curriculum may require teachers to use their creativity and
flexibility. For instance, they may need to form small groups for some students during lesson or
practice differentiated instruction (For more information, see the literature review of Differentiated
Instruction on the CAST websitehttp://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_diffinstruct.html) as
needed. Teachers may also need realistic numbers of adults working in their classrooms and vitality
to make extra efforts to modify existing curriculum. Switlick (1997) suggested that curriculum
modifications become successful when including FLOW: Fit into the classroom environment, Lend
themselves to meeting individual student needs, Optimizes understanding for each student,
and Works well with the activity planned for the lesson.
Curriculum modification can be applied to general classrooms in multiple ways in order to enhance
learning potentialities for all students. Only when contextual factors and principles of successful
modification are taken into consideration, and the modification is well designed to fulfill individual
students' needs determined through extensive analyses and assessment, does curriculum
modification play a vital role to move students forward in their learning.
top

Links to Learn More About Curriculum Modification

A Process for Making Changes in the General Education Curriculum
http://intranet.cps.k12.il.us/Lessons/Accommodations/
CurrModIntroduction/currmodintroduction.html
This article is made available by the Chicago Public Schools website and it contains suggestions for
potential accommodations and modifications to instruct students with disabilities for general
education classroom teachers. Examples are included to help introduce a process that teachers may
follow to teach students with disabilities using general education academic standards. The article
begins with a brief overview of standards-based instruction and then includes a list of considerations
for teachers.

Curriculum for Learning Disabled Students: More Than Just Textbooks and Workbooks
http://www.nathhan.com/artmore.htm
The National Challenged Homeschoolers Association Network (NATHAN) supports this web site and
this article was written by Dr. John Sutton. The article includes a traditional and modern definition of
curriculum and argues that commercially produced educational products may not be appropriate for
students with learning disabilities. Dr. Sutton provides many suggestions for how to approach
selecting educational materials for home schooled children and how to go about employing these
materials to teach students with learning disabilities in a home school curriculum.
Curriculum Modifications
http://www.hoagiesgifted.org/curriculum.htm
This link provides access to a wealth of information on working with students who are considered
"special needs" because they are gifted. The links within this site provide information on the needs of
gifted students and how they differ from other children in the classroom as well as suggestions for
accommodating these students. Some links provide specific information, others provide the user with
source information on a particular topic, and other links provide access to research on the topic. The
home site is copyrighted by "Carolyn K," and the site is called Hoagies' Gifted Education Page.
Key Attributes of Curriculum Modification
http://pages.framingham.k12.ma.us/sage/about.htm
This site provides an at a glance reference guide of information on the SAGE program of the
Framingham, MA public schools. It is a resource for educators working with students with special needs of
giftedness.
Margaret Wilson
http://www.ualberta.ca/~jpdasddc/incl/wilson.htm
Margaret Wilson, a special education teacher from Longmont, Colorado authored the article found
on this web site. The article contains ideas for teachers about curriculum modifications for students
with special needs in a multitude of subject areas. In this article, Ms. Wilson answers many
questions about supporting students with special needs and behavior management strategies that
can be used for students with special needs in the general education classroom.
Modifying the Elementary Curriculum for Students of Special Needs: A List of Ideas
http://www.geocities.com/denisev2/spd_curriculum_modification.html
This web page was written by Jan Demontigny from Farm Hill Elementary School in Middletown,
CT. The article is a bullet point list of various curriculum modifications that Mrs. Demontigny has
employed in her general education classroom to help students with disabilities. The list includes nine
suggestions and an explanation for why they each assist students with disabilities in the general
education classroom.
Philosophy of Curriculum Modification
http://barrier-free.arch.gatech.edu/Articles/philos_curric.html
This brief is located on the Barrier Free Education web site created by the produced theCenter for
Rehabilitation Technology and the IMAGINE Group at the College of Architecture at Georgia
Tech. Barrier Free Education is a resource site devoted to facilitating the access to math and science
education for students with disabilities. This particular article provides a philosophy of curriculum
modification.
Special Needs Students
http://connectedmath.msu.edu/
The information found through this link provides teachers with practical and do-able strategies for
curriculum modifications. Suggestions are provided for modifications of both assignments and
assessments, for students with special needs in a regular education classroom. Although these
suggestions are mainly geared toward a mathematics curriculum, they can be carried over into many
other subject areas as well. The home site is operated by "Connected Mathematics Project" and
provides a wide array of information from curriculum and assessment to research and professional
development.

Several factors affect all curriculum development in meeting the needs of 21st century learners in
both organized academic settings and corporation learning centers. Blueprinting curriculum
development requires selecting learning goals, designing knowledge delivery models while creating
assessment methods for individual and group progress. Factors affecting curriculum development
include government norms, which in turn brings other factors into the process. Valid curriculum
development requires awareness of the diversity of the target community socially, financially ans
psychologically.

Methods of outcome-based education (OBE) are student-centered learning methods that focus
on empirically measuring student performance (the "outcome"). OBE contrasts with traditional education,
which primarily focuses on the resources that are available to the student, which are called inputs. While
OBE implementations often incorporate a host of many progressive pedagogical models and ideas, such
as reform mathematics, block scheduling, project-based learning and whole language reading, OBE in
itself does not specify or require any particular style of teaching or learning. Instead, it requires the
students to demonstrate the skills and course content that they are required to learn. However in practice,
OBE generally promotes curricula and assessment based on constructivistmethods and
discourages traditional education approaches based on direct instruction of facts and standard methods.
Each independent education agency specifies its own outcomes and its own methods of measuring
student achievement according to those outcomes. The results of these measurements can be used for
different purposes. For example, one agency may use the information to determine how well the overall
education system is performing, and another may use its assessments to determine whether an individual
student has learned required material.
Outcome-based methods have been adopted for large numbers of students in several countries. In
the United States, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills started in 1991. In Australia, implementation
of OBE in Western Australia was widely criticised by parents and teachers[1] and was mostly dropped in
January 2007.[2] In South Africa, OBE was dropped in mid-2010.[3] On a smaller scale, some OBE
practices, such as not passing a student who does not know the required material, have been used by
individual teachers around the world for centuries.
OBE was a popular term in the United States during the 1980s and early 1990s. It is also called mastery
education, performance-based education, and other names.
Contents
[hide]

1 What is OBE?

1.1 Outcomes

1.2 Approaches to grading, reporting, and promoting

1.3 Differences with traditional education methods

2 Claims in favor of OBE

2.1 Deductive Evidence that OBE actually works

3 Criticism

3.1 Opposition to testing

3.2 Inappropriate outcomes

3.3 Extra burden on instructors and educational institutions

3.4 Criticism of educational reforms associated with OBE

4 OBE programs
4.1 Australia

4.1.1 Western Australia

4.2 South Africa

4.3 United States

4.3.1 OBE diplomas

4.3.2 OBE's relationship to college

4.4 European Union

4.5 Treaties
4.5.1 Washington Accord

5 Performance-based economy

6 See also

7 References

8 Further reading

9 External links

What is OBE?[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this
article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and
removed.(May 2011)
The effort, often by a state or local education agency, to organize all the features of schooling (including
aims, curriculum, instruction, and assessment) so as to produce specifically delineated results (often
including noncognitive as well as cognitive results) and generally with the expectation that all students will
demonstrate such results.
Outcome-based education is an effort of education that converges the traditional focus on what the school
provides (Means + Ends) to students (see Aristotle Four_causes: Efficient cause), in favor of making
students demonstrate that they "know and are able to do" whatever the required outcomes (Final_cause)
are.
OBE reforms emphasize setting clear standards for observable, measurable outcomes. A significant body
of deductive sources at ERIC Database provide peer-reviewed research material about OBE
requirements that enhance the adoption of specific outcomes. For example, many countries write their
OBE standards so that they focus on mathematics, language, science, and history, without referring to
attitudes, social skills, or moral values. Yet, a body of exceptions is gaining here: social skills
for labor & job market, the reduction of youth unemployment is a moral value (International Labour Office
ILO on Youth Employment Crisis).
The key features which may be used to judge if a system has implemented an outcomes-based education
systems are:

Creation of a curriculum framework that outlines specific, measurable outcomes. The standards
included in the frameworks are usually chosen through the area's normal political process.

A commitment not only to provide an opportunity of education, but to require learning outcomes
for advancement. Promotion to the next grade, a diploma, or other reward is granted upon
achievement of the standards, while extra classes, repeating the year, or other consequences entail
upon those who do not meet the standards.

Standards-based assessments that determines whether students have achieved the stated
standard. Assessments may take anyform, so long as the assessments actually measure whether the
student knows the required information or can perform the required task.

A commitment that all students of all groups will ultimately reach the same minimum standards.
Schools may not "give up" on unsuccessful students.

Outcomes[edit]
The emphasis in an OBE education system is on measured outcomes rather than "inputs," such as how
many hours students spend in class, or what textbooks are provided. Outcomes may include a range of
skills and knowledge, reduction of youth unemployment, return-on-investment. Generally, outcomes are
expected to be concretely measurable, that is, "Student can run 50 meters in less than one minute"
instead of "Student enjoys physical education class." A complete system of outcomes for a subject area
normally includes everything from mere recitation of fact ("Students will name three tragedies written
by Shakespeare") to complex analysis and interpretation ("Student will analyze the social context of
a Shakespearean tragedy in an essay"). Writing appropriate and measurable outcomes can be very
difficult, and the choice of specific outcomes is often a source of local controversies.
Each educational agency is responsible for setting its own outcomes. Under the OBE model, education
agencies may specify any outcome (skills and knowledge), but not inputs (field trips, arrangement of the
school day, teaching styles). Some popular models of outcomes include the National Science Education
Standards and the NCTM's Principles and Standards for School Mathematics[dubious discuss], as well as
European Union's Rethinking Education.

Approaches to grading, reporting, and promoting[edit]

An important by-product of this approach is that students are assessed against external, absolute
objectives, instead of reporting the students' relative achievements. The traditional model of grading on a
curve (top student gets the best grade, worst student always fails (even if they know all the material),
everyone else is evenly distributed in the middle) is never accepted in OBE or standards-based
education. Instead, a student's performance is related in absolute terms: "Jane knows how to write the
letters of the alphabet" or "Jane answered 80% of questions correctly" instead of "Jane answered more
questions correctly than Mary."
Under OBE, teachers can use any objective grading system they choose, including letter grades. In fact,
many schools adopt OBE methods and use the same grading systems that they have always used.
However, for the purposes of graduation, advancement, and retention, a fully developed OBE system
generally tracks and reports not just a single overall grade for a subject, but also give information about
several specific outcomes within that subject. For example, rather than just getting a passing grade for
mathematics, a student might be assessed as level 4 for number sense, level 5 for algebraic concepts,
level 3 for measurement skills, etc. This approach is valuable to schools and parents by specifically
identifying a student's strengths and weaknesses.
In one alternate grading approach, a student is awarded "levels" instead of letter grades. From
Kindergarten to year 12, the student will receive either a Foundational level (which is pre-institutional) or
be evidenced at levels 1 through to 8. In the simplest implementation, earning a "level" indicates that the
teacher believes that a student has learned enough of the current material to be able to succeed in the
next level of work. A student technically cannot flunk in this system: a student who needs to review the
current material will simply not achieve the next level at the same time as most of his same-age peers.
This acknowledges differential growth at different stages, and focuses the teacher on the individual needs
of the students.
In this approach, students and their parents are better able to track progress from year to year, since the
levels are based on criteria that remain constant for a student's whole time at school. However, this
experience is perceived by some as a flaw in the system: While it is entirely normal for some students to

work on the same level of outcomes for more than one year parents and students have been socialized
into the expectation of a constant, steady progress through schoolwork. Parents and students therefore
interpret the normal experience as failure.
This emphasis on recognizing positive achievements, and comparing the student to his own prior
performance, has been accused by some of "dumbing down" education (and by others as making school
much too hard), since it recognises achievement at different levels. Even those who would not achieve a
passing grade in a traditional age-based approach can be recognized for their concrete, positive,
individual improvements.
OBE-oriented teachers think about the individual needs of each student and give opportunities for each
student to achieve at a variety of levels. Thus, in theory, weaker students are given work within their grasp
and exceptionally strong students are extended. In practice, managing independent study programs for
thirty or more individuals is difficult. Adjusting to students' abilities is something that good teachers have
always done: OBE simply makes the approach explicit and reflects the approach in marking and
reporting.

Differences with traditional education methods[edit]

In a traditional education system and economy, students are given grades and rankings compared to
each other. Content and performance expectations are based primarily on what was taught in the past to
students of a given age. The basic goal of traditional education was to present the knowledge and skills of
the old generation to the new generation of students, and to provide students with an environment in
which to learn, with little attention (beyond the classroom teacher) to whether or not any student ever
learns any of the material.[4] It was enough that the school presented an opportunity to learn. Actual
achievement was neither measured nor required by the school system.
In fact, under the traditional model, student performance is expected to show a wide range of abilities.
The failure of some students is accepted as a natural and unavoidable circumstance. The highestperforming students are given the highest grades and test scores, and the lowest performing students are
given low grades. (Local laws and traditions determine whether the lowest performing students
were socially promoted or made to repeat the year.) Schools used norm-referenced tests, such as
inexpensive, multiple-choice computer-scored questions with single correct answers, to quickly rank
students on ability. These tests do not give criterion-based judgments as to whether students have met a
single standard of what every student is expected to know and do: they merely rank the students in
comparison with each other. In this system, grade-level expectations are defined as the performance of
the median student, a level at which half the students score better and half the students score worse. By
this definition, in a normal population, half of students are expected to perform above grade level and half
the students below grade level, no matter how much or how little the students have learned.

Claims in favor of OBE[edit]

Proponents view OBE as a valuable replacement of the traditional model of relative ranking by ability and
getting credit for merely sitting through class. OBE proponents support OBE because of its vision of high
standards for all groups. OBE proponents endorse measuring outputs rather than inputs (such as money
spent, number of hours of lecture given, new EU outcome requirements focus on reducing the youth
unemployment rate) and requiring that student demonstrate learning rather than just showing up.

OBE proponents believe that all students can learn, regardless of ability, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic
status, and gender.[8]Furthermore, OBE recognizes that a complex organization is more likely to produce
what it measures, and to downplay anything it considers unimportant. The adoption of measurable
standards is seen as a means of ensuring that the content and skills covered by the standards will be a
high priority in the education of students.
The standards-based education approach rejects social promotion and the inevitability of inferior
performance by disadvantaged groups. While recognizing that some students will learn certain material
faster than others, the standards movement rejects the idea that only a few can succeed. All students are
capable of continuous improvement.
The opportunities that were previously afforded to those at the top of a bell curve are opened up to the
diversity of all students, in a democratic vision, sometimes connected to social justice. [5]
The approach presents the following positions and viewpoints on OBE:

All students will complete rigorous academic coursework so that they leave high school prepared
for college or technical training, without remedial courses. [6][7]

All students, including those who live in poverty, will meet district, state, and national standards. [8]

Staff will maintain high expectations and standards, believing all students will succeed if kept to
high expectations[9][10][11][12]

Students should be measured against a fixed yardstick, a finish line, or "against the mountain"
rather than against other students.

Higher world class standards are required for 21st Century Skills.

Students should demonstrate that they have met standards, not just put in seat time to advance
to the next level.[13]

We haven't taught many of them even up to middle school standards. It only punishes them more to give
them an empty piece of paper we call a diploma when their high school experience hasn't prepared for
any of the skills they'll need after high school. We give them a diploma that is a doorway to a street corner
or unemployment line.
(Russlynn Ali of Education Trust-West) [14]
In essence, OBE seeks to reject a rank-ordered definition of success by essentially requiring that all
students shall be required to cross the finish line, at least as well as the specified standards. In practice,
OBE results in accountable spending, thus also enabling jobless-rate risk-prevention of students who
were previously allowed to graduate while being functionally illiterate and innumerate. OBE's objective
standards finally put a brake on useless & popgun grade inflation, clearly to the distress of students who
prefer high, but meaningless, grades.

Deductive Evidence that OBE actually works[edit]

The ERIC Database provides a Thesaurus Descriptor "Outcome-based Education" with presently over
369 peer-reviewed hits. Meanwhile, OBE is a coherent bound collection of ideas, with uniformity in the
way it is implemented from case to case. This enhances testability for OBE's effectiveness in a way that
applies universally. The concreteness of OBE's conception of a "measurable outcome" is welcoming, both
in implementing an OBE regime and in testing its effectiveness.

Criticism[edit]
Criticism of OBE falls into a few major groups:

Opposition to standardized testing

Criticism of inappropriate outcomes

Extra burden on instructors and educational institutions

Dislike of something that is not OBE

Though it is claimed the focus is not on "inputs", OBE is criticised for being used to justify increased
funding requirements, increased graduation and testing requirements, and additional preparation,
homework, and continuing education time spent by students, parents and teachers in supporting learning.
It is also criticized for not being able to measure certain skills, much like IQ tests.

Opposition to testing[edit]
Critics claim that existing tests do not adequately measure student mastery of the stated objectives. [citation
needed]

Some parents also object to the use of standardized tests (all students take the same test under the same
conditions) because they think it unfair for schools to require the same level of work or to use the
achievement tests for impoverished or disadvantaged students as they do for more advantaged students.
[citation needed]

The OBE philosophy insists that assessment models be carefully matched to the stated objectives. Highstakes tests are not required in an OBE system; norm-referenced tests are prohibited. Portfolios, daily
assessments, teacher opinions, and other methods of assessment are perfectly compatible with OBE
models. Furthermore, the OBE approach does not permit special, lower standards for students who have
been badly served by public education in the past.

Inappropriate outcomes[edit]
Many people oppose OBE reforms because they dislike the proposed outcomes. They may think that the
standards are too easy, too hard, or wrongly conceived. Finally, some so-called OBE critics oppose nonOBE reforms that were presented as a part of a wide-ranging reform "package", rather than opposing
OBE itself.
Standards can be set too low: Most fear that the focus on achievement by all students will result in
"dumbing down" the definition of academic competence to a level that is achievable by even the weakest
students. Critics are unhappy with having all students meet a minimum standard, instead of most students
meeting a somewhat higher standard.

Some critics also question whether even such low goals are realistic or attainable, and whether success
can only be framed in terms of high test scores and high incomes. The emphasis on higher reading
standards and algebra for all appears to devalue vocational trainingand the achievement of those who do
not get high test scores, but who are likely to become competent blue-collar workers.
Standards can be set too high: Others object that the standards are too high. OBE models do not
approve of social promotion, so non-disabled students who perform significantly below the stated
standard may be held back or required to take additional instruction. Especially when the standards are
relatively new, and the schools are just beginning to adjust to the new standards, a majority of students
struggle with at least some of the requirements. Parents are understandably unhappy to learn that their
children have not acquired the necessary skills, and occasionally respond by demanding that the
standards be lowered until their children are declared to be passing.
Sometimes this demand that the standards be lowered is justified, because standards can be found
developmentally inappropriate for all but the brightest students. The State of Washington found that some
fourth grade WASL math problems were much more difficult than what is typically expected of nine-yearold students. A 2008 draft mathematics standard proposed that Kindergartners multiply to 30 byskip
counting (also known as counting by twos: 2, 4, 6, 8...),[15] and that second graders solve simple algebra
story problems.[16]
Committees often set standards without considering how many students are currently achieving at that
level. For example, in the 1998 North Carolina Writing Assessment, less than 1 percent of fourth graders
received the highest possible score for writing content. [17]While a majority of students passed easily,
parents were upset that so few were rated as being best.
Dislike of specific outcomes: Finally, many complaints are directed against the nature of certain
standards. For example, a politician might propose that standards be included for education about sex
or creationism. Opponents say that many educational agencies have adopted outcomes which focus too
much on attitudes (e.g., "Students will enjoy physical education class") rather than academic content.
[18]
Similarly, the "Who Controls Our Children" campaign in Pennsylvania claimed that an OBE reform
effort was part of a federal program that was "stressing values over academic content, and holding
students accountable for goals that are so vague and fuzzy they can't be assessed at all." [19] The Western
Australian outcomes were criticised for being too vague. [20]
Controversial standards are opposed because of their content, not simply because they are standards.
OBE models always leave the choice of the exact standards to the educational authority, so that families
can influence the choice of standards according to their community's preferences.

Extra burden on instructors and educational institutions[edit]

Critics sometimes oppose OBE because of the burden it imposes on instructors and educational
institutions more broadly, a burden that they regard as unjustified by any evidence showing that OBE
actually improves learning outcomes. Rather than issuing a single letter or number to summarize an
entire term's achievements, an OBE system may require that the teacher track and report dozens of
separate outcomes. It takes longer to report that a student can add, subtract, multiply, divide, solve story
problems, and draw graphs than to report "passed mathematics class," but the burden imposed by OBE
does not owe primarily to the reporting of more data. The burden is spread across the entire educational
institution, in the form of (1) a new layer of assessment placed atop the old familiar one, (2) a new
bureaucracy responsible for the institution-wide collection and presentation of data, and (3) the altering

and curtailing of classroom instruction to make room for more intrusive testing. In view of the paucity of
evidence showing that OBE actually works, many regard this extra burden as an unjustified drain on
pedagogical resources.[21]

Criticism of educational reforms associated with OBE[edit]

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section
byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged
and removed.(May 2011)
Many criticisms of OBE are actually criticisms of other things that are introduced with an OBE system.
Many people oppose OBE reforms because the OBE reforms are packaged with other reforms.
OBE reform is often packaged as part of a comprehensive school reform model which
promotes constructivism, inquiry-based science,tax reform, teacher training, and more. Other educational
reforms, including changes to the school calendar, the age of students that attend school in a certain
building, or the way tax revenues are divided, may all be inappropriately labeled "OBE" reforms simply
because they were proposed on the same day as an OBE program.
School to work may also be a component of these multi-faceted reform programs. School-to-work
programs require students to spend time in an internship or other form of career training or experience.

OBE programs[edit]
Australia[edit]
One of the problems of OBE for students wishing to attend university is that it does not lend itself well to
forming a competitive Tertiary Entrance Rank (TER).[citation needed] The suggested model for mapping levels
to a TER has been attacked because it results in a score with more significant digits than the measures
from which it is derived and so is charged with being mathematically unsound. [citation needed] William
Spady promoted the OBE method as a way of getting beyond 'meaningless' percentages and marks,
aiming for education for life beyond school, giving children and young adults a broader and more
transformative education. Arguably inelegant implementation makes the future of OBE unclear, and at
odds with the Australian Government in Canberra.

Western Australia[edit]
The current[when?] OBE controversy in Western Australia relates specifically to the introduction of OBE in
upper school (year 11 and 12) classes. Many Western Australian schools have been using some form of
OBE for K-10 students for several years. (OBE is only one part of the current changes to upper school
education currently being implemented. Other aspects of the new courses of study that form the upper
school review have received little public attention.)
As part of the debate over further introduction of OBE into the teaching practice of Western Australia,
various groups of concerned citizens and those in the teaching profession formed various single-issue
lobby and action groups to progress their viewpoints. One such group was People Lobbying Against
Teaching Outcomes formed by Greg Williams. The core view of this group was their disagreement with
the former Western Australian Minister for Education (Ljiljanna Ravlich) in respect to her commitment to
implement OBE. Another such group was Parents Against Outcomes Based Education, [1] who took the
position that the implementation of OBE would pose significant problems and potentially lead to the

decreased knowledge and performance of school students. Their objection was not to OBE itself, but to
the bundle of reforms, of which OBE was the most mentioned. The "Fuzzy Outcomes" criticism above
applies.
In January 2007, the Western Australian Government responded to the massive opposition by teachers
and parents to its implementation of an OBE system by stating that it would allow year 11 and 12 students
to be graded traditionally.[2]

South Africa[edit]
This section
requires expansion. (July 2010)

OBE was introduced to South Africa in the late 1990s by the post-apartheid government as part of
its Curriculum 2005 programme [9], but it was widely viewed as a failure, and was eventually scrapped in
2010.[3][22]

United States[edit]
In the early 1990s, several standards-based reform measures were passed in various states, creating
the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (1991), Washington Assessment of Student Learning (1993),
the CLAS in California (1993), and the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (1993).
At the national level, Congress passed the Goals 2000 act in 1994. The best-known and most farreaching standards-based education law in the U.S. is the No Child Left Behind Act, which mandated
certain measurements as a condition of receiving federal education funds. States are free to set their own
standards, but the federal law mandates public reporting of math and reading test scores for
disadvantaged demographic subgroups, including racial minorities, low-income students, and special
education students. Various consequences for schools that do not make "adequate yearly progress" are
included in the law.
At the state level, exit examinations have proliferated, and now more than half of US high school students
will be required to pass ahigh-stakes test to get a normal high school diploma. In some states, fewer than
half of students and one-quarter of ethnic minorities have met these standards. [23]
In some communities, such as Littleton, Colorado, organized opposition groups have forced educational
agencies to rescind reforms[when?].[24] In Littleton, community members felt that vague, nonacademic
outcomes were replacing content, and that technically unsound assessments would be used to determine
something as important as high school graduation. They also objected to students being refused a high
school diploma if they could not perform 36 separate mathematics skills, despite being given good grades
in class.

OBE diplomas[edit]
Main article: Certificate of Initial Mastery
A certificate of initial mastery was a program to provide students with an interim certification around the
age of 16. The certificate was earned by taking and passing a written test, which had been designed to
determine whether a student was performing at about the tenth grade level. A student who passed the
10th grade test would receive a Certificate of Initial Mastery.

The CIM concept was patterned after nations like Germany's hauptschule system, in which the students
who are not going to elite universities end their school-based education around age 16 and start careeroriented training in fields like construction technology,allied health professions, and business. In a typical
US proposal, a student who received a CIM would then take two more years of career-based training. A
national standards board was proposed to create similar tests for eight career fields, with the hope that
employers would prefer certificated employees.
The CIM has been essentially abandoned; however, in its place, states frequently require passing the
same exam as a condition of receiving a high school diploma. Oregon had proposed a CAM for
"advanced mastery" at the 12th grade.

OBE's relationship to college[edit]

One effect of high school exit examinations is that it may become more difficult to graduate from high
school than enter college. There is no set passing level for college entry tests like the SAT, and such tests
are often not required by the lowest-rated colleges.
In the future, some states may require criterion-based standards either for admission to or graduation
from public universities.[25] States are attempting to align high school curricula with the minimum
standards for beginning college in an effort to reduce college dropouts and the number
of remedial classes being taught at universities.

European Union[edit]
In December 2012, the European Commission stated that it "present[ed a] new strategy in 22 languages:
The youth unemployment rate is close to 23% across the European Union yet at the same time there
are more than 2 million vacancies that cannot be filled. Europe needs a radical rethink on how education
and training systems can deliver the skills needed by the labour market. ... Rethinking Education calls for
a fundamental shift in education, with more focus on 'learning outcomes' - the knowledge, skills and
competences that students acquire. Merely having spent time in education is no longer sufficient." [26]

Treaties[edit]
Washington Accord[edit]
The Washington Accord is an international accreditation agreement for professional engineering
academic degrees, between the bodies responsible for accreditation in its signatory countries. The
Washington Accord covers undergraduate engineering degrees under Outcome-based
education approach.

Performance-based economy[edit]
Main article: Performance-related pay
Outcome-based methods are used in some businesses. For whole companies, outcome-based
evaluations are the basis of stock exchange prices: Companies which produce higher profit growth are
more valuable than companies which perform poorly. Employees who are paid for piecework or
by commission are examples of traditional employment use of outcome-based pay. Alternatives
includeseniority systems (oldest worker gets highest pay).
Many private employers give standards-based tests to determine whether job applicants have necessary
job skills (such as typing speed), and nearly all government employees have to take and pass a civil

service examination. Furthermore, nearly all licensed professionals, from nurses to truck drivers to
beauticians, already take such tests as a condition of entering their professions. Often these tests have
disproportionate failure rates for disadvantaged subgroups, such as school dropouts and impoverished
people.

What is Outcome-Based Education

Outcome-based or performance-based education [1] is a shift in teaching/learning
methodology and in purpose. The education system on which America has run, from its
inception up through the early 1960's, is known as a traditional education system. It
focused on content was content rich the acquisition of knowledge with the child being
challenged to use the scope of that knowledge to formulate a reasoned conclusion or
judgment. In this context content means core knowledge what most parents refer to as
the three r's reading, 'riting, and 'rithmetic. When education reformers use the
word content, they do not mean core knowledge. [2]
Outcome-based education calls for a shift in that paradigm (model, pattern),
from content to process in which a child is called upon to demonstrate what he knows and
can do against standards established at the state and national [3] level. Instead of core
knowledge being the focal point of education, problems, issues, and challenges based as
on future trends presented in the context of unit themes (also known as thematic units)
becomes the focal point.
Under outcome-based education, the district undergoes a process of restructuring, the
framework of which is the establishment of
a mission statement
a beliefs statement
student learning goals
curriculum [4] and instruction aligned to the exit outcomes
assessment tools to measure whether the child is being moved to mastery of the exit
outcomes
The mission statement is a statement of the purpose of the organization; the beliefs
statement is a statement of belief about children and learning. The student learning goals
are five or six broad generalizations of what the child should know and be able to do as the
result or end product of his/her schooling experience. The student learning goals are called
by various names in various districts. Some of the more generic terms for them are exit
outcomes, process outcomes, student learning goals, goals, learner
outcomes and outcomes. For the purposes of clarity here, they will be known as the exit
outcomes.
Exit outcomes, stated in various ways, are pivotal to the entire restructuring process, are
based on future trends, are complex demonstrations of personal development, and are
intended to produce children who
are self directed learners;
are critical thinkers/problem solvers/decision makers;
are communicators and collaborators (team players);
can express themselves creatively, proactively, and responsibly;

easily adapt to change;

exhibit self-esteem; and
demonstrate concern, tolerance and respect for others as citizens in a global society [5]
Further defining the exit outcomes can be performance indicators broad statements of
critical content that further define expected performance of the exit outcomes.
By law, the exit outcomes at the district level must align with the exit outcomes established
at the state level in order for the district to receive state and federal grant money and
federal Title I funds. This is clearly stated in HR6 the re-authorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 which, in 1994, was renamed the Improving
America's Schools Act (IASA). [6] As the re-authorization of the ESEA, the IASA was
written to become the funding mechanism for Goals 2000. At the state level, the district
must show compliance with the state goals in order to receive state grant money, federal
grant money filtered through the state coffers (sometimes noted as a 'pass through'), and
Title I funds. How the district is complying with the state and federal goals must be set
down in writing on the grant applications submitted by the school district to the state.
After the exit outcomes are established, attention then shifts to designing and aligning the
curriculum, instruction, and teaching methodologies to move the child to the exit outcomes
what the child should know and be able to do as the end product of his/her schooling
experience. This requires that the district design down from the exit outcomes then align
back to the exit outcomes to ensure that the curriculum, instruction, and teaching
methodologies are doing what they are supposed to do move the child to the exit
outcomes.
Books thick books have been and are being written on the shift in the teaching/learning
process that occurs in the classroom. [7] For the sake of brevity, it is important to
understand that with outcome-based education the focus of education has shifted from the
acquisition of knowledge with the child being challenged to use the scope of that knowledge
to formulate a reasoned conclusion to cultivate and discipline the mind, to the learning
experience centering around social or life-related issues [8] problems, issues, and
challenges based on current events and future trends to socialize the child. Unit
themes or thematic units, generalizing social or life-related issues, are centered primarily in
two content areas social studies and science as these contain a greater range of concepts
and themes [9] relative to social or life-related issues. Knowledge is integrated (thus the
term integrated curriculum) and is incorporated in the context in which the child will use
and apply that knowledge in addressing unit themes or thematic units. This is the basis of
the less is more theory teaching less but teaching it more in-depth (as it is used and
applied) to social or life-related issues.
The process of developing and aligning curriculum and instruction to the exit outcomes is
an in-depth process incorporating many steps, processes, etc. Once the curriculum and
instructional processes are developed and aligned, the measure of their effectiveness in
moving the child to the exit outcomes is the assessment. The primary purpose of the
assessment is to measure whether the child is demonstrating the wanted process [10], the
wanted behavior/procedure [11], as delineated by the exit outcomes. The assessment is
also a teaching tool, structured to instruct students as well as assess. They also teach to
the test, providing information then directly assessing students on the information
provided. There are several types of assessment

alternative assessments is a catch all term for assessments that depart from the
traditional multiple choice, norm-referenced tests;
performance assessments measure content and process what the child knows and
can do;
portfolio assessment is a picture of the students classroom work over time, much as
the artist's portfolio of best pictures drawn;
authentic assessments are assessments based in the context of social issues
simulations of problems, issues, or challenges that a person might encounter in real life.
If the curriculum and instruction are not moving the children to mastery of the exit
outcomes as measured by assessment, then the curriculum and instruction are
changed. This process is repeated until the curriculum and instruction align with the exit
outcomes and produce in the child the desired process.
This is an overview of outcome-based education.

What Is OBE?
Outcome-Based Education has become a focal point for critics of educational reform all across the
country. But why? In order to understand and evaluate their criticisms, it is necessary to understand
what Outcome-Based Education is and the difference between the principle and the practice of OBE.
At its most basic, OBE is simply the establishment of expected goals or outcomes for different levels
of elementary-secondary education, and a commitment to ensuring that every student achieves at
least those minimum proficiencies before being allowed to graduate.
This is eminently sensible, and some of you might believe schools already do this. For the most part,
they do not.
Outcome-Based Education is fast becoming reality in nearly every state. It succeeds in doing so for
three primary reasons:
1) Reform is Necessary.For more than a decade poll after poll has shown the American public's
dissatisfaction with the public education system. This was especially brought to the forefront by the
famous A Nation at Risk report during the Reagan Administration. National and international test
scores are down, yet average grades assigned to students are up. Violence, substance abuse, and
parenthood among teens are all up, but literacy is down. Even if we accept that there are more
students taking college entrance exams like the SAT than would have considered college decades
ago skewing averages down the most able students aren't scoring as high as in the past. Yet
expenditures for education have risen far faster than inflation for more than 30 years.
Outcome-Based Education offers a means of reform.
2) Parents & Taxpayers feel out of control out of the loop in decision-making for reform. It is clear
that our public schools are not performing as well as most of us expect. Yet it is primarily the

behavioral scientist architects and managers of this dysfunctional system, along with politicians and
influential teachers' unions, who are in charge of creating a new and better system. Reform is
imperative, but we have been reforming education this time for more than ten years. When the
suggested reforms involve spending even less time on the foundation skills that too many
students already are not receiving somebody isn't proposing the right reforms.
OBE offers the opportunity to set standards outside of the educational system.
3) There is no standard for measuring the success of students, teachers, or schools. There is a
genuine need for setting standards that students must reach before they may receive a diploma.
Although there is often a state or district mandate that students take so many years of a subject and
earn this many hours or credits in order to graduate, there are few requirements regarding what
specific skills make up each course. For example, what degree of skill should be expected of
students who study a year of algebra? How much knowledge comprises a year of English?
Presently, students from different schools, districts, and states can have very different answers to
those questions. Furthermore, the failure of a student, classroom, school, or the entire school
system, is the responsibility of the parents, taxpayers, society, drugs, poverty, or the entertainment
industry . . . anything but the educational system itself. At least, this is the myth that the educational
system perpetuates.
Outcome-Based Education offers a standard of measurement.
This sounds so simple and fundamental that it is not surprising that OBE quickly became popular . . .
how could anyone be opposed to it? But . . . what OBE seems to be in theory is not necessarily what
it has become in reality. Unfortunately, OBE still sounds so sensible . . . that only some kind of nut
would oppose it. Critics, therefore, must be very clear that their opposition is not to the principle of
OBE in fact that the principle of establishing expected outcomes is not only acceptable, but is
absolutely necessary. The objection to OBE lies in what it has become in practice.
We wholeheartedly endorse the principle of OBE, and the practice of adopting Outcomes that set
quantifiable standards in academic skills and subjects whose accomplishment by students can be
verified through objective testing.
We roundly condemn what OBE has become in practice setting standards that are not academic
in nature and cannot be verified through objective testing. Outcomes which are so soft and fuzzy that
student understanding and proficiency cannot be verified are intolerable. How do you test a student's
values and beliefs, and what, or whose values, set the standard? At best, these Outcomes distract
from more important knowledge and skills. At worst, some of them intrude on the sanctity of
vulnerable adolescent minds.
We do not have and desperately need schools based upon the first kind of Outcome; we cannot risk
the future of our children, our nation, and our world on the second kind.

Critics must make clear their support for the principle of having expected learning outcomes, but their
reservations or objections regarding the specific Outcomes that have so far been adopted.
What reforms are going to help our schools?
No single reform will suffice. Our educational system needs extensive revision. Here are some
suggestions, however, for how to begin:

Separate behavioral science experimentation from education.

Laws such as the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) must be enforced and should
even be broadened and strengthened. PPRA already prohibits psychological testing without
express written consent of parents, but that did not prevent the widespread use of tests like the
Educational Quality Assessment (EQA) that do just that. Protection must be extended to prohibit
explicitly affective curricula as well.

Uniform minimum standards for performance of objectively measurable skills which must be
achieved early in students' school careers. Advanced standards for graduation should not be
uniform, but broader and more flexible yet they must still be objective standards. This is what
OBE should be. Affective instruction has little or no place in schools.

Renew schools' focus on their primary job. Public schools cannot be everything for everyone.
Public schools' purpose is to provide students with a common core of fundamental knowledge
and skills. During the past three decades too many additional responsibilities have been placed
on schools from school lunches (now breakfasts, even during the summer) to sex education,
coping with death, environmental awareness, AIDS awareness, global relationships, cultural
sensitivity, and family violence sensitivity. Each of those, individually, may have merit, but
collectively they take time and distort the focus of schools away from teaching skills that students
will need to succeed in later their studies, employment, and personal lives after school.

A decrease in nonteaching particularly administrative personnel. The massive growth of this

portion of school employees has led to a decline in focus on classroom teachers. The proportion
of elementary/secondary school resources that directly support classroom instruction is often
distressingly small, especially in larger districts (Portland, Oregon - 36%; New York, New York 22%). Indeed, when staffing reductions were announced here in Portland schools, 75% of the
cuts were teaching positions. This is the sign of a system with severely misplaced priorities.

Increased parental involvement in student performance in school. Too many parents treat schools
as glorified daycare for children, and take little interest in a child's progress, much less serve as
role models for standards of achievement and behavior. Schools, however, bear much
responsibility for this state of affairs. Too often parents who do wish to be involved are
discouraged by the inflexibility of bureaucratic public institutions and the arrogance and
intransigence of school authorities.

Downsize! Downsize! DOWNSIZE! This rallying cry of modern business should become part of
the modern school. The number of elementary and secondary schools fell 69% between 1940
and 1990, from approximately 200,000 to just over 62,000. The number of school districts fell
more than 87%, from 117,000 to fewer than 16,000. Coupled with the population increase during
that period, average district enrollment increased by more than 1,100%, from 217 to 2,637. There
is some evidence that increased district size, school size, and proportion of nonlocal funding are
all significantly and negatively related to student achievement i.e. as school systems become
more centralized, student achievement falls. Some New York City schools are finding renewed
success by creating independent mini-schools within huge urban school buildings.

Reverse the trend toward intolerance of independent thought. Teachers and principals cannot do
their jobs effectively will not want to do their jobs to the best of their abilities if they are
treated as second-class members of the education team. If schools have any faith at all in their
ability to hire qualified personnel . . . for Goodness Sake stay out of their way and let them do
their jobs! Teachers and principals are closer to students and can understand and deal with their
needs much more effectively than people isolated in an administrative office somewhere. Just as
businesses are learning, schools should not to have too many layers of management between
their top management and their customers. Of course staff must be supervised, and there should
be procedures for improving performance which does not measure up, including (as necessary)
for terminating the employment of those who cannot improve. But until that time, and for all the
other teachers and principals who are already capable and not in need of such measures . . .
bureaucrats and administrators should not try to do their jobs for them!

Regain the loss (perhaps abandonment is more accurate) of vision and purpose among
educators. In expecting superintendents to have specific training and experience in management,
finance, public relations, fundraising, etc., school systems have lost the sense of importance in
hiring leaders of vision, with a willingness to take risks in order to find innovative solutions to
complex problems for our schools and school systems. This is the most important common factor
that studies identify among successful schools. Without genuine leaders, any organization has
difficulty maintaining a sense of purpose. Our nation needs bold thinkers and innovators to lead
our schools back to positions of success and admiration. The best leaders are not afraid to be
wrong. There will, sometimes, be failures. Leaders should not be penalized for such failures.
Better to learn from small failures than suffer catastrophic failures by experimenting with an entire
nation of children at once.

Apply knowledge of effective schools in every school. The knowledge we already have of what
makes schools effective is rarely ever applied. When effective innovations are identified
whether originated locally or through some special project or grant the knowledge too often
stops there. Although programs such as the National Diffusion Network (NDN) were established
to perform this function, useful information is not finding its way into enough schools. This might
involve replicating successful programs from elsewhere. Sometimes it could mean returning to
older methods which were discarded during some previous round of reform. This does not mean,
however, irresponsible experimentation, such as employing unproven psychotherapeutic
techniques in the hands of nonprofessionals. Parents must always be informed about experiments
which depart significantly from the norm, and allow them to exempt their children from such

experiments, if they wish. Indeed, some of the experimentation taking place could be quite
appropriate if it were taking place on a limited basis with parental consent. But statewide or
nationwide experimentation is clearly unacceptable.

Embrace diversity. Children are not all alike. Teachers are not all alike. Schools need not should
not be all alike. If the first concern of our public school systems is what is best for the children . . .
then public schools should work with private schools and home schoolers to help ensure their
success, not try to constrain and regulate them to be clones of the public schools. Family
backgrounds and learning styles are can be very different even unique perhaps educational
solutions should reflect some of that diversity.

Regain the trust of parents. The support of parents is essential to the successful educational
process. Schools must learn to fully inform parents, take their suggestions and even criticisms
seriously and deal openly and honestly with them. Educators might know more about the way
schools work, but they must also understand that most parents know more about their own
children than teachers and administrators will ever have time to learn.

Note that funding is not among these suggestions. Money is not the answer, for spending on education
(federal, state, local, public and private, elementary, secondary, and university) has grown faster than
enrollment and inflation for more than three decades. Indeed, study after study concludes that leadership
and high expectations are more important to successful education than mere dollars spent. It could even
be that the very availability of so much money has caused some of the other problems. As teachers'
satisfaction with their jobs declines, for example, they are more inclined to demand that their unions
negotiate increased wages and benefits. As administrators spend more time on various union
negotiations necessitating greater focus on budgetary concerns and on fulfilling state and federal
paperwork requirements, they have less time to know and supervise their staff or to meet with students
and parents and to understand and deal with their needs.

What OBE Is Not

Outcome-Based Education is not dangerous. It is not hateful, or immoral. OBE is not even
unethical . . . in theory.
But like unnumerable previous ideas to reform or revolutionize education, OBE the theory has been
twisted by educationists and legislators into something unrecognizable.
A parallel example lies with another much-criticized concept, Mastery Learning. (This should not be
confused with Learning for Mastery, which is something else entirely.) Some of Benjamin Bloom's
work might be open to criticism, but this is one concept that should be free of controversy.
Mastery Learning is basically a logical extension of OBE, but where OBE proposes to set
standards that students must meet near the end of their secondary school careers, Mastery
Learning simply requires that students demonstrate proficiency over individual topics on a
weekly or even daily basis, before advancing.

But there are many people who will vigorously denounce Mastery Learning as immoral . . .
because Mastery Learning the innovative tool was often used to teach equally novel subjects
such as sex education and values clarification.
But Mastery Learning methods may be used to teach concepts as faddish and suspect as
values clarification or as crucial as history or mathematics. In fact, reduced to its essentials,
Mastery Learning methods bear much resemblance to John Saxon's popular (with everyone
but mainstream educationists) and enormously effective mathematics texts: focus on a
specific topic and don't proceed to the next one until students master it. Plenty of practice
and review help to cement knowledge and proficiency.
There have been many worthwhile ideas that changed into something they were not intended
to be once the educational bureaucracy redefined them. "Accountability," for example,
became "blame the teachers for everything." And Individualized Instruction (which we
developed, by the way), did not originally mean individual one-on-one tutoring for every child
or a decline of any kind in the student/teacher ratio or class size and had none of the
bureaucratic formality that devolved into Individual Education Plans (IEP).
Critics must separate their criticism of the content of instruction from the instructional
methodology itself. Such teaching methods and tools whether OBE or Mastery Learning or
Individualized Instruction are free of content. Many educators, legislators, media representatives,
or simply other parents would be sympathetic to objections when they learn the specifics, but will
dismiss critics of a sensible concept like OBE out of hand as being members of some lunatic fringe.
However, if criticisms of content are presented carefully, many listeners including experts and
policymakers would become immediately sympathetic . . . after all, only members of some lunatic
fringe would invade the privacy of children and families in such a fashion as we see taking place in
the name of reform today!

Outcome Based Education

Don Closson

Outcome Based Education

Times are changing. The pressure on our public schools to improve,

and change, has become intense. Since 1960 our population has
increased by 41%, spending on education has increased by 225% (in
constant 1990 dollars), but SAT scores have fallen by 8% (or 80
points). Although few would argue that the schools are solely to
blame for our children's declining academic performance, many are
hoping that schools can turn this trend around.

The decade of the 80s brought numerous education reforms, but few of them were a
dramatic shift from what has gone on before. Outcome-based education (OBE) is one
of those that is new, even revolutionary, and is now being promoted as the panacea for
America's educational woes. This reform has been driven by educators in response to
demands for greater accountability by taxpayers and as a vehicle for breaking with
traditional ideas about how we teach our children. If implemented, this approach to
curriculum development could change our schools more than any other reform
proposal in the last thirty years.
The focus of past and present curriculum has been on content, on the knowledge to be
acquired by each student. Our language, literature, history, customs, traditions, and
morals, often called Western civilization, dominated the learning process through
secondary school. If students learned the information and performed well on tests and
assignments, they received credit for the course and moved on to the next class. The
point here is that the curriculum centered on the content to be learned; its purpose was
to produce academically competent students. The daily schedule in a school was
organized around the content. Each hour was devoted to a given topic; some students
responded well to the instruction, and some did not.
Outcome-based education will change the focus of schools from the content to the
student. According to William Spady, a major advocate of this type of reform, three
goals drive this new approach to creating school curricula. First, all students can learn
and succeed, but not on the same day or in the same way. Second, each success by a
student breeds more success. Third, schools control the conditions of success. In other
words, students are seen as totally malleable creatures. If we create the right
environment, any student can be prepared for any academic or vocational career. The
key is to custom fit the schools to each student's learning style and abilities.
The resulting schools will be vastly different from the ones recent generations
attended. Yearly and daily schedules will change, teaching responsibilities will
change, classroom activities will change, the evaluation of student performance will
change, and most importantly, our perception of what it means to be an educated
person will change.
What is OBE?

Education is a political and emotional process. Just ask

Pennsylvania's legislators. That state, along with Florida, North
Carolina, and Kansas, has been rocked by political battles over the
implementation of outcome-based educational reforms. The
governor, the state board of education, legislators, and parents have
been wrestling over how, and if, this reform should reshape the
state's schools. Twenty-six other states claim to have generated
outcome- based programs, and at least another nine are moving in
that direction.
Before considering the details of this controversy, let's review the major differences
between the traditional approach to schooling in America and an outcome-based
approach.
Whereas previously the school calendar determined what a child might do at any
moment of any school day, now progress toward specific outcomes will control
activity. Time, content, and teaching technique will be altered to fit the needs
of each student. Credit will be given for accomplishing stated outcomes, not for time
spent in a given class.
The teacher's role in the classroom will become that of a coach. The instructor's goal
is to move each child towards pre-determined outcomes rather than attempting to
transmit the content of Western civilization to the next generation in a scholarly
fashion. This dramatic change in the role of the teacher will occur because the focus is
no longer on content. Feelings, attitudes, and skills such as learning to work together
in groups will become just as important as learning information--some reformers
would argue more important. Where traditional curricula focused on the past,
reformers argue that outcome-based methods prepare students for the future and for
the constant change which is inevitable in our society.
Many advocates of outcome-based education feel that evaluation methods must
change as well since outcomes are now central to curriculum development. We can no
longer rely on simple cognitive tests to determine complex outcomes. Vermont is
testing a portfolio approach to evaluation, in which art work, literary works, and the
results of group projects are added to traditional tests in order to evaluate a student's
progress. Where traditional testing tended to compare the abilities of students with
each other, outcome-based reform will be criterion based. This means that all students

must master information and skills at a predetermined level in order to move on to the
next unit of material.
Implementing OBE Reform

Reformers advocating an outcome-based approach to curriculum

development point to the logical simplicity of its technique. First, a
list of desired outcomes in the form of student behaviors, skills,
attitudes, and abilities is created. Second, learning experiences are
designed that will allow teachers to coach the students to a mastery
level in each outcome. Third, students are tested. Those who fail to
achieve mastery receive remediation or retraining until mastery is
achieved. Fourth, upon completion of learner outcomes a student
graduates.
On the surface, this seems to be a reasonable approach to learning. In fact, the
business world has made extensive use of this method for years, specifically for skills
that were easily broken down into distinct units of information or specific behaviors.
But as a comprehensive system for educating young minds, a few important questions
have been raised. The most obvious question is who will determine the specific
outcomes or learner objectives? This is also the area creating the most controversy
across the country.
Transitional vs. Transformational OBE

According to William Spady, a reform advocate, outcomes can be

written with traditional, transitional, or transformational goals in
mind. Spady advocates transformation goals.
Traditional outcome-based programs would use the new methodology to teach
traditional content areas like math, history, and science. The state of Illinois is an
example of this approach. Although outcomes drive the schooling of these children,
the outcomes themselves reflect the traditional content of public schools in the past.
Many teachers find this a positive option for challenging the minimal achiever. For
example, a considerable number of students currently find their way through our
schools, accumulating enough credits to graduate, while picking up little in the way of
content knowledge or skills. Their knowledge base reflects little actual learning, but
they have become skilled in working the system. An outcome-based program would

prevent such students from graduating or passing to the next grade without reaching a
pre-set mastery level of competency.
The idea of transformational reform is causing much turmoil. Transformational OBE
subordinates course content to key issues, concepts, and processes. Indeed, Spady
calls this the "highest evolution of the OBE concept." Central to the idea of
transformational reform is the notion of outcomes of significance. Examples of such
outcomes from Colorado and Wyoming school systems refer to collaborative workers,
quality producers, involved citizens, self-directed achievers, and adaptable problem
solvers. Spady supports transformational outcomes because they are future oriented,
based on descriptions of future conditions that he feels should serve as starting points
for OBE designs.
True to the spirit of the reform philosophy, little mention is made about specific things
that students should know as a result of being in school. The focus is on attitudes and
feelings, personal goals, initiative, and vision--in their words, the whole student.
It is in devising learner outcomes that one's world view comes into play. Those who
see the world in terms of constant change, politically and morally, find a
transformation model useful. They view human nature as evolving, changing rather
than fixed.
Christians see human nature as fixed and unchanging. We were created in God's
image yet are now fallen and sinful. We also hold to moral absolutes based on the
character of God. The learner outcomes that have been proposed are controversial
because they often accept a transformational, changing view of human nature.
Advocates of outcome-based education point with pride to its focus on the student
rather than course content. They feel that the key to educational reform is to be found
in having students master stated learner outcomes. Critics fear that this is exactly what
will happen. Their fear is based on the desire of reformers to educate the whole child.
What will happen, they ask, when stated learner outcomes violate the moral or
religious views of parents?
For example, most sex-education courses used in our schools claim to take a valueneutral approach to human sexuality. Following the example of the Kinsey studies and
materials from the Sex Education and Information Council of the United States, most
curricula make few distinctions between various sex acts. Sex within marriage

between those of the opposite sex is not morally different from sex outside of
marriage between those of the same sex. The goal of such programs is selfactualization and making people comfortable with their sexual preferences.
Under the traditional system of course credits a student could take a sex-ed course,
totally disagree with the instruction and yet pass the course by doing acceptable work
on the tests presented. Occasion-ally, an instructor might make life difficult for a
student who fails to conform, but if the student learns the material that would qualify
him or her for a passing grade and credit towards graduation.
If transformational outcome-based reformers have their way, this student would not
get credit for the course until his or her attitudes, feelings, and behaviors matched the
desired goals of the learner outcomes. For instance, in Pennsylvania the state board
had recommended learner outcomes that would evaluate a student based on his or her
ability to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of families. Many feel that this
is part of the effort to widen the definition of families to include homosexual couples.
Another goal requires students to know about and use community health resources.
Notice that just knowing that Planned Parenthood has an office in town isn't enough,
one must use it.
Parents vs. the State

The point of all this is to say that transformational outcome- based

reform would be a much more efficient mechanism for changing our
children's values and attitudes about issues facing our society.
Unfortunately, the direction these changes often take is in conflict
with our Christian faith. At the core of this debate is this question,
"Who has authority over our children?" Public officials assume they
do. Governor Casey of Pennsylvania, calling for reform, told his
legislature, "We must never forget that you and I--the elected
representatives of the people--and not anyone else--have the
ultimate responsibility to assure the future of our children." I hope
this is merely political hyperbole. I would argue that parents of
children in the state of Pennsylvania are ultimately responsible for
their children's future. The state has rarely proved itself a
trustworthy parent.

Outcome-based education is an ideologically neutral tool for curricular construction;

whether it is more effective than traditional approaches remains to be seen.
Unfortunately, because of its student-centered approach, its ability to influence
individuals with a politically correct set of doctrines seems to be great. Parents (and
all other taxpayers) need to weigh the possible benefits of outcome-based reform with
the potential negatives.
Other Concerns About OBE

Many parents are concerned about who will determine the learner
outcomes for their schools. One criticism already being heard is that
many states have adopted very similar outcomes regardless of the
process put in place to get community input. Many wonder if there
will be real consideration of what learner outcomes the public wants
rather than assuming that educators know what's best for our
children. Who will decide what it means to be an educated person,
the taxpaying consumer or the providers of education?
If students are going to be allowed to proceed through the material at their own rate,
what happens to the brighter children? Eventually students will be at many levels,
what then? Will added teachers be necessary? Will computer-assisted instruction
allow for individual learning speeds? Either option will cost more money. Some
reformers offer a scenario where brighter students help tutor slower ones thereby
encouraging group responsibility rather than promoting an elite group of learners.
Critics feel that a mastery- learning approach will inevitably hold back brighter
students.
With outcome-based reform, many educators are calling for a broader set of
evaluation techniques. But early attempts at grading students based on portfolios of
various kinds of works has proved difficult. The Rand Corporation studied Vermont's
attempt and found that "rater reliability--the extent to which raters agreed on the
quality of a student's work--was low." There is a general dislike of standardized tests
among the reformers because it focuses on what the child knows rather than the whole
child, but is there a viable substitute? Will students find that it is more important to be
politically correct than to know specific facts?
Another question to be answered by reformers is whether or not school bureaucracies
will allow for such dramatic change? How will the unions respond? Will legislative

mandates that are already on the books be removed, or will this new approach simply
be laid over the rest, creating a jungle of regulations and red tape? Reformers
supporting outcome-based education claim that local schools will actually have more
control over their programs. Once learner outcomes are established, schools will be
given the freedom to create programs that accomplish these goals. But critics respond
by noting that although districts may be given input as to how these outcomes are
achieved, local control of the outcomes themselves may be lost.
Finally, there are many who feel that focusing on transformational learner outcomes
will allow for hidden agendas to be promoted in the schools. Many parents feel that
there is already too much emphasis on global citizenship, radical environmentalism,
humanistic views of self-esteem, and human sexuality at the expense of reading,
writing, math, and science. They feel that education may become more propagandistic
rather than academic in nature. Parents need to find out where their state is in regards
to this movement. If an outcome-based program is being pursued, will it focus on
traditional or transformational outcomes? If the outcomes are already written and
adopted, can a copy be acquired? If they are not written yet, how can parents get
involved?
If the state is considering a transformational OBE program, parental concerns should
be brought before the legislature. If the reform is local, parents should contact their
school board. Parents have an obligation to know what is being taught to their
children and if it works. Recently, parental resistance halted the OBE movement in
Pennsylvania when it was pointed out to the legislature that there is no solid evidence
that the radical changes pro-posed will actually cause kids to learn more. While we
still can, let's make our voices heard on this issue.
PHILOSOPHY
The philosophy of the UP College of Nursing is anchored on the belief that its major role is to
strengthen the capabilities of its individual members and the society as a whole, for them to
realize their aspirations. This can be achieved through relevant education, research and
continuing education and community extension services. The UPCNs core values are
summarized as follows: INTEGRITY, NATIONALISM, CARING, UNIVERSALISM and
EXCELLENCE (INCUE).

Mission and Vision

The UP College of Nursing is the premiere nursing school that acts as a change agent
serving the health needs of the Filipino people, and provides leadership and excellence
in nursing development in the global community.

Mission - Vision - Values

The overriding philosophy of the School of Nursing is the unification of education, research and
practice. The Unification Model supports the University of Rochester School of Nursing Mission and
Vision.

Mission Statement
Building on a pioneering tradition of unifying nursing education, research, and practice, the URSON
pursues excellence in clinical and scientific learning, discovery, and nursing care.

Vision Statement
Lead the national agenda in transforming the discipline of nursing through innovative education,
practice, and research.
Vision
A University committed to Exemplary Christian Education for Life (EXCEL) and responsive to
the needs of the total person and the world.

Mission
The mission of Central Philippine University is to carry out a program of spiritual, intellectual,
moral, scientific, technological, and cultural training, and allied studies under influences
which strengthen Christian faith, build up character and promote scholarship, research and
community service.

Quality Policy
To fulfill the mission and realize the vision of Central Philippine University, we commit to
consistently provide superior quality services by integrating Christian values, academic
excellence, highest level of professionalism, and quality considerations in every aspect of
our operations. We maintain a quality management system that complies with international
quality standards. We continually improve to achieve global excellence that satisfies the
expectations of the university community, partner institutions, and the general public.

Core Values

Faith
Character
Justice
Stewardship
Excellence

Faith
The act of believing the things God has revealed about Himself and acting on those beliefs.
This includes commitment, cooperation, trust and confidence.

Character
The aggregate features and traits that form the individuals nature of a person, moral quality
and good report. This includes honesty, integrity, humility and loyalty.

Justice
Righteousness or lawfulness and fairness. It is observing due process in administering the
deserved punishment of reward. This includes fairness, equality, morality, and peace.

Stewardship
The proper and responsible management of life, position, possessions, and other resources
entrusted by God to man. This includes service, accountability, culture and outreach.

TERMINAL OBJECTIVES
The graduate program terminal objectives provide clear
statements of expected results.
The terminal objectives, derived from the mission and core
values of the Georgetown University School of Nursing &
Health Studies, require that the graduate be able to:
1.

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Integrate advanced nursing knowledge, ethical principles and clinical excellence in advanced
practice nursing within an area of specialization to reflect the Jesuit values ideas and Georgetown
University Nursing Model of valuing cura personalis, excellence in the pursuit of knowledge, holistic
care of the patient, and integrating the principles of common good and social justice.
Develop the role of the advanced practice nurse with commitment toexcellence and quality
outcomes.
Utilize research and evidence to assist in the development and validation of nursing science.
Integrate theoretical and scientific concepts that influence leadership in advanced practice roles
consistent with education, practice and research.
Participate in the process of health policy development for continued improvement of health care
systems.
Engage in lifelong learning, and the professional development of self and others.

to provide student-centered, excellent professional education in the Jesuit tradition, the School of
Nursing & Health Studies has based its baccalaureate and master's program curricula on terminal
objectives derived from its mission and core values.

Georgetown University School of Nursing & Health Studies prepares future leaders to respond to
the growing complexity of health care delivery at all levels.

Admission Information
Adventist University of the Philippines is an institution of higher learning operated by the Seventhday Adventist Church. However, it accepts applications from individuals irrespective of race, color, sect,
and religious affiliation, whose manner of acting, feeling and thinking are in harmony with the objectives,
values and beliefs of the institution and whose capacities and abilities show the possibility of achieving a
satisfactory scholastic record. Although church membership is not a pre-requisite for admission,
applicants are expected to abide by the rules and regulations of the University.

Admission Requirements for all Students - Undergraduate Level

To qualify for admission, applicants must give evidence of good moral character, intellectual
capacity, satisfactory health, financial capability, and a desire to learn. Admission to the University is a
privilege, and not a right. The following are the general requirements for admission:
Freshmen
1. Payment of application, testing and ID fees
2. Original Form 138/High School Report Card
3. Two letters of recommendation from
(a) school principal/adviser
(b)district pastor
4. Original Certification of Good Moral Character from the school last attended
5. Certification from the principal that the applicant graduated valedictorian, salutatorian and
first honorable mention from a class of 50 and above
6. Pictures: Two copies (2 x 2) (prepare more for other departments)
7. Photocopy of birth certificate and marriage certificate, if married (female) (NSO
authenticated copy)
Transferees
1. Payment of application, testing and ID fees
2. Certificate of Transfer Credentials from the last school attended
3. Certification of Grades/Transcript of Records (for evaluation purposes)
4. Original Certification of Good Moral Character from the last school attended
5. Two letters of recommendation from

(a) school dean/guidance counselor

(b) district pastor
6. Pictures: Two copies (2 x 2) (prepare more for other departments)
7. Photocopy of birth certificate and marriage certificate, if married (female)(NSO authenticated
copy)
Note: Internal requirements are by respective colleges.
English Profieciency as a Requirement for Admission
All students who scored 0-19 in the English Placement Test be required by their department chairs
to enroll in Communication Arts 1 with Intensive Review and Lab (6 units). The said students be allowed
to take a maximum of 4 subjects only (12 units), making a total of 18 units or less as adviced by the
department chairs.

Application Forms
Go to downloads page

Admission Requirements for Foreigners

In addition to the above, foreign students must comply with the following requirements for
admission:
1. The applicant must have an average grade/over-all grade point average (GPA) of B- (2.00).
2. For non-English speaking countries, an applicant must present a certification that he/she
passed the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) from the country of origin. If not
available, the prospective student must attend the AUP English Proficiency (Language)
Center for at least one semester.
3. Must submit a certification of good moral character and a recommendation letter from the
school last attended.
4. Must submit a copy of the transcript of records for evaluation purposes.
5. Must pay an application fee of US $175 which is non-refundable upon submission of the filled
out application form to the University.
6. An Airfare Guarantee Deposit is required upon enrollment. This deposit represents the
students purchase of his/her ticket back to his/her own country, which could only be
withdrawn upon finishing the course or leaving the university permanently. This cannot be
used for any other purpose.

For Student Visa Application

A foreign student who comes to the Philippines for the sole purpose of taking courses higher than
high school should at least be 18 years of age. He/She must submit the following documents required by
the Department of Foreign Affairs:
1. Six (6) copies of Personal History Statement (PHS form will be provided) with original
signature, picture, and left and right thumb marks on each copy.
2. Two (2) copies of transcript of records original, translated to English and properly
authenticated by the Philippine Foreign Service Post located in the applicants country of
origin or legal residence.
3. An affidavit of support and a bank reference/certification of a sponsoring person or
organization properly authenticated by the Philippine Foreign Service Post located in the
applicants country of origin or legal residence.
4. Photocopy of passport where the picture, birth dates and birthplace appear.
Additional Information for the Admission of Foreign Students
In order for foreign students to have a pleasant stay in the country, the student must abide with the
following instructions:
1. Upon arrival of the student in the Philippines, he/she is required to go to the National
Quarantine Office for medical clearance. Then he/she proceeds to the Office of the Bureau of
Immigration (BI) to apply for ACR I-Card.
2. The student upon arrival in the Philippines is to enroll in no other school than the Adventist
University of the Philippines.
3. The student is expected to be a full time student, taking not less than 15 units and should
finish the course within the time specified in the approved curriculum.
4. An additional fee of PhP1, 000.00 is charged per semester on a foreign student, excluding
summer sessions, for services done for them while they are in the Philippines. (DECS Order
No. 74, s. 1989)
5. A foreign undergraduate married student coming with his/her family is not provided housing.
6. All foreign students, except the married ones are expected to stay in the dormitory and eat at
the University Cafeteria which serves vegetarian food only.
7. Any irregularity committed by a foreign student, academic or behavioral, will be reported to
the office of the Bureau of Immigration for proper action.
Requirements for Change of Status from Temporary Visitor to Foreign Student Visa
(Under Section 9(f) of the PIA of 1940, as amended)

1. Written endorsement from the school for the conversion of applicants status to student on
the schools official stationary signed by the schools Registrar and stamped with the schools
official dry seal
2. Original copy of the Notice of Acceptance (NOA) containing a clear impression of the schools
official dry seal
3. Original copy of the Certificate of Eligibility for Admission (CEA) issued by the Commission
on Higher Education (CHED) for Medicine and Dentistry students
4. Proof of adequate financial support to cover the expenses for the students accommodation
and subsistence as well as the school dues and other incidental expenses
5. Scholastic records duly authenticated by the Philippine Foreign Service Post located in the
students country of origin or legal residence
6. Police Clearance Certificate issued by the National Police Authorities in the students country
of origin or residence duly authenticated by the Philippine Foreign Service Post having
consular jurisdiction over the place for student who resided in the Philippines for less than 59
days.
7. However, for a student who resided in the Philippines for less than 59 days at the time he
applies for the said change/conversion of his admission status to that of a student, he shall
also be required to submit the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) clearance.
8. Quarantine Medical Clearance Certificate by the National Quarantine Office
9. Copy of the students Personal History Statement signed by the student with a 2 x 2-inch
photograph just recently taken
10. Photocopy of the photo, data and stamp of the latest arrival pages of the passport of the
student. The passport itself shall be presented to the BI office for verification
11. National Intelligence Coordinating Agency (NICA) Clearance
Source: Republic of the Philippines, Department of Justice, Bureau of Immigration, Manila.
Requirements for Special Study Permits for Foreign Students
A foreign student who is below 18 years of age (minor under guardianship) is required to apply for
Special Study Permit from the Bureau of Immigration with the following requirements:
1. Letter request from the duly appointed guardian / parents if in the country
2. Certificate of acceptance from the school
3. Photocopy of passport reflecting applicants valid stay
4. Affidavit of support and the proof thereof (bank certificate) / Guaranty of return to country of
origin
5. Birth certificate

6. Affidavit executed by the parents appointing said guardian to take custody and care over the
minor-applicant (if executed outside the Philippines, the same must be duly authenticated to
be admitted as foreign document/s; if executed in the Philippines, parents passport must be
presented)
7. Photocopy of the guardians passport reflecting authorized stay, if guardian is an alien and
he/she must not be a mere 9(a) visa holder
Air Fare Guarantee Deposit
All foreign students are required to pay an air fare guarantee deposit as one of the admission
requirements amounting to the following rates:
Africa (Central, East, South, North, West)

US $950

Australia

850

Bangladesh

550

Canada

800

Caroline Island

550

China

300

Eastern Caroline Island

800

Europe

950

Guam

600

Hong Kong

250

India

550

Indonesia

450

Japan

450

Korea

400

Malaysia

400

Middle East

950

Nepal

500

Nigeria

950

Myanmar

500

Pakistan

600

Palau

350

Papua New Guinea

600

Sabah

450

Singapore

400

Solomon Islands

600

Sri Lanka

600

Taipei

250

Thailand

400

United States of America

800

Note: Figures are subject to change depending on the cost of the airline tickets.
Admission Procedures
1. Inquiries or application for admissions to AUP should be addressed to:
The University Registrar
Adventist University of the Philippines
P.O. Box 1834, Manila 0901 Philippines
Location Address : Puting Kahoy, Silang 4118 Cavite
Telephone Nos. : (049)541-1211 to1225
Fax Nos.
Email

: (049) 541-1228; 1229

: admissions@aup.edu.ph
registrar@aup.edu.ph
info@aup.edu.ph
darlene_aup@yahoo.com

Website

: www.aup.edu.ph

2. Applicants must submit the completed application forms together with a non-refundable
application fee and all the admission requirements to the University Registrars office.
3. After all the admission requirements are submitted, the applicant must take the entrance
examinations administered by the Guidance Department.
RETENTION POLICIES
The UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS COLLEGE OF NURSING offers a community-oriented, competency-based
4-year curriculum leading to the degree of BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN NURSING (BSN) in consonance with
prescribed CHED (Commission on Higher Education) requirements. An added dimension to the program is a
one-month live-in Community Immersion Experience.
The College reserves the right NOT TO ALLOW a student to continue with the program based on the
following specific RETENTION POLICIES OF THE COLLEGE OF NURSING.
1. After admission to the Nursing program, the student is expected to pass all the courses including REED,
PE and NSTP as prescribed in the curriculum.
2. To be eligible for Capping and Badge Investiture, the second year student must have completed
successfully all the courses or its equivalent number of units of the first two years of the BSN program
inclusive of summer to include REED, PE and NSTP.
3. For professional nursing courses, the student must pass both the lecture and laboratory (RLE) portions of
the course to be eligible to take up the next higher professional course. Students who fail either in the
lecture or laboratory (RLE) portion of a professional nursing course must re- enrol in that subject.
4. Students who shall incur an NC or a failing grade in at most two (2) courses (including REED, PE and

NSTP) may be readmitted for the next semester only after signing a waiver that must be witnessed by the
faculty class adviser and a parent or guardian. Students with more than two (2) failures shall no longer be
admitted for enrolment.
5. A repeated occurrence of NC or failure in any subject in the subsequent semester after a waiver has
been signed shall be a ground for the students dismissal.
6. Students who fail to comply with the rules, regulations, policies and requirements of the University in
general and/or the College of Nursing shall be subjected to the appropriate penalty as set forth in the USC
Student Manual after due process has been observed. Very specifically, at any phase of the BSN program, a
student may be expelled, eliminated, dismissed or asked to withdraw after due process on any of the
following grounds.

illegal termination of pregnancy;

immorality in any form;

drug abuse;

gross misconduct in the classroom or clinical area;

eserious error/variance in the clinical area due to negligence which may have a direct or indirect
adverse effect on the condition of the patient;

incapacitating diseases such as psychosis, cancer, heart disease, lung ailment and/or communicable
disease, supported with a medical certificate from the University Physician;

membership and/or involvement in any fraternity/sorority organizations and activities.

Admission Requirements

Fresh High School Graduates

o

One (1) 2x2 ID Pictures

General High School average of at least 80 percent (2.5).

Final grades in Science & Math at least 80%

Must pass the following:

Interview conducted by the committee on admission, Retention and Promotion

(CARP)

Certificate of Good Moral Character from the school head.

Photocopy of birth certificate.

For married applicants:

A photocopy of his/her marriage contract.

A promissory letter that she will not get pregnant for the duration of the course.

Good physical and mental health with normal result of the following:

Chest X-ray

ECG

CBC

Urinalysis

Fecalysis

For married applicants-negative pregnancy test

TRANSFEREES:
o

One (1) 2x2 ID

Pictures

Honorable dismissal

Transcript of records

Must have no grade

below 2.0 (80%) in any
subject.

Must pass the

following:

Interview
conducted by
the committee on Admission, Retention and Promotion (CARP).

Certificate of good moral character from the head of the school last attended.

Photocopy of birth certificate.

For married applicants:

A photocopy of his/her marriage contract.

A promissory letter that she will not get pregnant for the duration of the course.

Not more than 30 years old.

Good physical and mental health with normal result of the following:

Chest x-ray

ECG

CBC

Urinalysis

Fecalysis

Hepa B screening

For married applicants-negative pregnancy test

Retention Policy

Academic Requirements
o

BSN I, II, III, and IV students who obtain a grade below 3.0 (75%) in any general
education subject will be made to repeat the said subject only once. He/she will be
dismissed from the college if he/she fails in the same subject for the second time. Failure
in two or more general education subjects will mean dismissal from the college.

BSN I, II, III, and IV students who obtain grade below 3.0 (75%) in any major subject
(Bsci 100NT, Chem 101NT, Chem 103AH, Bsci 104NP, Math 101, Educa 103N, Philo
102AH, Chem 107AH,Phys 101AH, Bsci 106N, Econ 101AH, PharmN, Math 111, Res N)
will be dismissed from the college.

For professional subjects in BSN II, III, and IV (ASHE 101 ASHE 102, NCM 100, NCM
101, NCM 102, NCM 103, NCM 104, NCM 105,):

Students who obtain a grade below 3.0 (75%) in the lecture portion will be made to
repeat the said subject (both lecture and RLE) only once.

Students who obtain a grade below 3.0 (75%) in the RLE portion will be made to repeat
the RLE only once.

Students who obtain a grade below 3.0 (75%), lecture and RLE on the said subject, will
be dismissed from the college.

Good Physical Health

o

Normal result of Chest x-ray, ECG and laboratory studies, e.g. stool, urine, and CBC are
requirements for promotion to the next level.

In addition, Hepa B screening is required for BSN II.

In case of epidemic or a threat to the retention policy (as in cases of suspected

pregnancy) or as required, the College reserves the right to require a student to undergo
diagnostic test or routine examination, as the case warrants.

A Sound Mind
o

The College of Nursing reserves the right, for the benefit of both student and the
institution, to require students to submit themselves to neuropsychiatry/psychiatric
examination. A psychological clearance is required for readmission to the College of
Nursing.

Student must comply with the requirements, rules and regulations of the College of
Nursing and of the University of San Augustin.

I hope this can answer what you are trying to ask: integrated means the class has a mix
while block means time is specifically spent on one format. Confusing? Here is the example
for integrated vs. block at my school. My A&P class is integrated. The teacher chooses how
long lecture will be and how long lab will be. Class is 3 hours, so she can choose which we
do first, how much time we spend on it etc. My chemistry class was block. So for 3 hours a
week we had specific time for chemistry lecture. Then, once a week we showed up to a
different classroom, possibly another instructor, and worked ONLY on chem lab stuff. I hope
this is helpful.

Benefits of an Integrated Curriculum

Posted on January 6, 2011 | Leave a comment

As a future teacher, I recognize that good teaching is not simply the transmission of
knowledge from teacher to student, but is rather the means by which learning occurs
both for the teacher and for the students. Learning does not take place within a
vacuum in which students simply accept whatever knowledge is handed to them
without first examining it against their schema. Students are constantly bombarded
with information and ideas from the world around them to assume that these do not
infiltrate their opinions about life would be foolish. This is one reason I find such value
in pursuing teaching via an integrated curriculum.
An integrated curriculum is all about making connections, whether to real life or across
the disciplines, about skills or about knowledge (Drake & Burns, 2004, p. 7-8). An
integrated curriculum fuses subject areas, experiences, and real-life knowledge together
to make a more fulfilling and tangible learning environment for students. This may
mean simply giving a math assignment that involves the characters in that weeks
reading story or it could be as complex as giving the entire year a theme and creating
lessons to incorporate that topic. Because students are not taught in a vacuum, devoid
of outside interaction and information, their connections between what they learn in
school and the knowledge and experiences they have already had, play a large role in
understanding concepts and retention of learning.

Another reason that I find use of an integrated curriculum to be so pertinent is due

simply to the fact that it offers more repetition of information than to teach subjects in
isolation. As John Medina, renowned molecular biologist and author, in his book Brain
Rulesand on his website brainrules.net, explains, The capacity of memory is initially
less than 30 seconds. If we dont repeat the information, it disappears, (2008). If
students are not receiving this information more than once, it is quite reasonably going
in one ear and out the other. By taking the information learned in the morning in one
subject, and refreshing students memories about this information later in the day, in a
different subject study, they are much more likely to retain this knowledge. Medina
shares, The way to make long-term memory more reliable is to incorporate new
information gradually and repeat it in timed intervals, (Medina, 2008, p.147). By
incorporating various subjects into others throughout the day, I would be able to repeat
information that students may have missed or forgotten about from previous
discussions. The more often the information is repeated, and the more interesting the
information is, the greater the likelihood that students will preserve it.
Finally, each and every student in my future classroom will be different. Each student
will have a distinct learning style. By using an integrated curriculum, I will be much
more likely to reach more students in a way that attracts them. While one student may
not have cared about a subject studied in the morning, when it is tied to a favorite
afternoon subject, his or her interest will suddenly become piqued. While it is virtually
impossible to individualize classroom instruction to the degree that I would like to, using
an integrated curriculum is heading in the direction of teaching each student in a way
that is relevant and applicable to him or her. I think that I will definitely put in the time
and effort it takes to use an integrated curriculum because the benefits for students are
significant.

3 Basic Types of Curriculum

Explicit
This type of curriculum is what appears in documents and teachers' plans.

Implicit (or Hidden)

This type of curriculum has to do with how particular assumptions about schooling and learning manifest
in practice. For example, when a teacher has her or his desk at the front of the classroom and "teaches"
from this area, the message that is being learned by students is that the teacher is in control, including
being the knowledge authority, and is the center of attention. The teacher is also of central importance.

Another example involves the value of particular topics that is communicated implicitly. Such values can
be communicated by time spent, by tone of voice, or by how the topic is treated (e.g., trivialized or
marginalized).

Null
The null curriculum is what is not taught. Not teaching some particular idea or sets of ideas may be due to
mandates from higher authorities, to a teachers lack of knowledge, or to deeply ingrained assumptions
and biases. Teachers and schools may not teach that Christopher Columbus slaughtered many of the
native peoples he encountered when he "discovered" the Americas. Many teachers are under pressure
not to teach evolution.

Commentary
These three types of curricula can allow us to identify the nature and emphases of the curricula in use in
various schools and school districts. The implicit and null curricula are of particular interest for identifying
the underlying assumptions and biases of specific curricula and programs.
curriculumexplicithiddennull

1.
o

Written Curriculum
The Written Curriculum is the published curriculum that is part of the formal
education. The Written Curriculum includes course objectives, course guides, lesson plans,
course material and grading criteria. The Written Curriculum is supplemented by other
types of curricula, such as the Electronic Curriculum. Although this s the official curriculum,
it is often subordinated by other more powerful curricula.

Hidden Curriculum
o

The Hidden, or Covert, Curriculum refers to messages communicated by an

organization that are implied. The Hidden Curriculum may have more influence than the
Written Curriculum because it is based on the norms and values of the organization. The
Hidden Curriculum includes ongoing school activities and routines that are not documented
and can indicate unofficial preferences for certain subjects. The scheduling or prioritization
of certain courses over others can point to a Hidden Curriculum that some subjects are not
as important as others.
Sponsored Links

Eyetec GmbH Lbeck

Augenoptische Gerte - Alle Volk Lupen mit 10% Rabatt

www.eyetec.com

Null Curriculum
o

The Null Curriculum represents the material or subjects that are not being
taught as part of the Written Curriculum. Due to limited resources or an emphasis on purely
academic courses, not all material or subjects will be taught. When subjects such as music or

art are not included in the Written Curriculum and thus form part of the Null Curriculum,
students may believe these subjects have minimal value.

Tested Curriculum
o

The Tested, or Assessed, Curriculum is the body of information on which

students will be tested. Teachers may prefer to teach material that will be tested on state or
school tests to improve their success rates. Teachers who put more emphasis on the Tested
Curriculum may overlook the material prescribed in the Written Curriculum.

Electronic Curriculum
o

The Electronic Curriculum includes all learning activities that are Internetbased. By acknowledging the existence of the issues to be considered with the electronic
curriculum, educators must take into consideration the credibility of information on the
Internet. Students must develop critical-learning skills to determine the quality of
information they are researching.
2.

Courses

PHM 350:

Pharmacology

NUR 330*:

Health Assessment and Nursing Therapeutics

NUR 340:

Foundations of Nursing Practice

NUR 360*:

Acute Nursing Care of Adults and Older Adults

NUR 370*:

Mental Health and Psychiatric Nursing

NUR 435*:

Nursing Care of the Childbearing Family

NUR 440*:

Nursing Care of Children, Adolescents and their Families

NUR 450:

Level III Integrative Seminar

NUR 460*:

Leadership Clinical Immersion

NUR 470*:

Community and Population Health Nursing

NUR 480:

Role Transition Seminar

TRADITIONAL BSN
PREREQUISITES*
&
UNIVERSITY GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS

WRA 110-150 (4)

WRITING*
MTH 103 (3)
COLLEGE ALGEBRA
STT 200 (3)
STATISTICAL METHODS*
ISS 2XX: (4)
SOCIAL SCIENCE
ISS 3XX (4)
SOCIAL SCIENCE
IAH 201-210 (4)
HUMANITIES I
IAH 211+ (4)
HUMANITIES II
ELECTIVE CREDITS WILL BE NEEDED TO REACH THE 120 CREDIT
MINIMUM
REQUIRED FOR GRADUATION
* Indicates Prerequisite course
(Minimum of a 2.0 is required in each science prerequisite.)

PSY 101 (4)

INTRODUCTORY PSYCHOLOGY*
HDFS 225 (3)

LIFESPAN OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT*

CEM 141 (4)
GENERAL CHEMISTRY*
BS 161 (3)
CELLS AND MOLECULES*
ANTR 350 (3)
HUMAN ANATOMY AND STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY*
PSL 250 OR 310 (4) INTRODUCTORY PHYSIOLOGY*
CEM 143 (4)
SURVEY OF ORGANIC CHEMISTRY*
MMG 201
*/302 (3/1) FUNDAMENTALS OF MICROBIOLOGY*
+ LAB
HNF 260 (3)
PRINCIPLES OF HUMAN NUTRITION*
NUR 300 (4)
PATHOPHYSIOLOGY*

TBSN Course Sequence

Level 1
Level 2
Level 3

Level 4
CR CR CR CR
NUR 330
Health Assessment & Nursing
Therapeutics

7 NUR
360
Acute Nursing Care of Adults
8 NUR 435
Care of the Childbearing
Family
4 NUR 460
Leadership Clinical Immersion
5
NUR 340
Foundations of Scholarly
Nursing Practice
4 NUR
370
Mental Health & Psychiatric
Nursing

4 NUR 440
Nursing Care of Children,
Adolescents & Their Families

4 NUR 470
Community Health &
Population Nursing
4
PHM 350
Pharmacology

3 NUR 450
Level III Integrative Seminar
3 NUR 480
Role Transition Seminar

3
Semester Credits 14
Semester Credits 12
Semester Credits 11
Semester Credits 12
Effective Fall 2011

Total Credits 120