Educational Remediation Plan

In America's schools, an increase in alignment activities can be seen amidst educational institutions in an effort to strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of curriculum, instruction and assessment programs (Clarke, Stow, Ruebling & Kayona, 2006; Marsh & Willis, 2003). The necessity to remove disparity in teaching and learning is compelling educational leaders to scrutinize the skills and concepts taught in schools (Marsh & Willis, 2003). The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) initiative of 2002 also warrants the importance of alignment activities (Clarke, Stow, Ruebling & Kayona, 2006).

Change is a multifaceted procedure and is affected by numerous organizational processes, which involve change, growth, or activity (Marion, 2002). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was instrumental in requiring states to take identifiable measures to ensure student achievement, especially with closing the achievement gap between students. The components of NCLB include accountability, assessment, standards and high quality teachers in an attempt to improve academic achievement of all students (McCarthy, 2007). Educational leaders in an educational setting should concentrate on the needs of the students (Gunter, Estes& Schwab, 2003).

The following treatise is a remediation plan for an educational institution that lacks alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Low-test scores and community dissatisfaction with instructional practices support this illustration. This comprehensive remediation plan will align curriculum, instruction and assessment within this educational institution. The plan will also address internal and external resistance to change, the needs of the community, a method to measure the plan's success, and an implementation strategy.

Curriculum

The intention of a curriculum is to offer guidance, motivation and responsibility in educational settings (Clarke, Stow, Ruebling, & Kayona, 2006). Educational leaders need to be effective and efficient concerning curriculum in an educational setting (Diamond, 1997). Educational leaders assume numerous functions but none have a more notable influence on students than the engagement in the construction of the curriculum one teaches (Diamond, 1997).

The curriculum within this educational setting should contain standards and center upon student ability. The curriculum should be collegial-based and resonate the joint connection of curriculum, instruction, and assessment, and persistently parallel the curriculum to the academic intentions. The curriculum should be divided by subject, grade level, and communicate an explanation of the core content for each subject. Additionally, the curriculum should reference the mission of the school district and the objectives for each subject. The prospectus should be easily understandable and organized as well as depict learning activities for students to acquire the intended learning. The curriculum should also contain skills and concepts as well as core content for assessment, which will permit the teacher to assess student learning and determine the degree to which students ascertain the intended knowledge. The standards-based units of study provide comprehensive favorable circumstances for students to learn.

Furthermore, the curriculum should center on what is most significant for students to know and be capable of doing and to aid them in his or her lives and with career planning (Hider, 2006). Curriculum documents are the written manifestation of the curriculum and convey decisions from the curriculum planning process (Armstrong, 1997). In a strictly standards-based curriculum, some teachers initiate teaching to outcomes; as a result, teach to the test versus teaching to the benefit, and needs of the students (Janzen, 1999). Furthermore, when teaching to outcomes of test scores, the focus shifts from the students to the outcomes (Janzen, 1999). Thus, the changes to be made in this curriculum should focus on student learning and critical thinking and not necessarily on taught standards (Diamond, 1997). The curriculum should also offer balanced educational opportunities to augment the academic performance of students (Sandholtz, Ogawa, & Scribner, 2004). Teachers make sure that students achieve minimum standards, despite his or her academic abilities and frequently instruct at the lower standards since the school district's tests place significance on standards; the curriculum does not pose variations for learners (Sandholtz, Ogawa, & Scribner, 2004). The curriculum then presents standards as the focus for instruction and does not account for the academic differences among learners. The curriculum needs to focus on the students and a shift from what is covered to what the students learn (Diamond, 1997). As Allen postulates (as cited in Diamond, 1997, p. 50), educational leaders should maintain an "understanding of assessment, learning styles, motivation, and various instructional methods and technologies." The ideal curriculum provides for individual differences so that each student may adequately achieve (Ediger, 1996). Analyzing curriculum documents elicits awareness to the importance of value within an educational setting. This effort can identify sections requiring attention and offer a foundation for educational leaders to use as they set up guidelines for curriculum developers.

Instruction

Good instruction initiates with good planning and organization (Gunter, Estes& Schwab, 2003). Planning involves setting goals and developing a rationale for instruction, defining objectives, constructing a method of evaluation, and creating units of study that encompass the content of the course of study (Gunter, Estes& Schwab, 2003). Educators should ensure that goals offer an important outlook of the educational process and establish standards to augment success. Instructional planning must focus on the students; learning is more likely to take place when educators involve students in the process and offer students the occasion to explain what they comprehend. Furthermore, individuals learn differently, therefore, educators should instruct in a manner that permits students to learn the material by various means that will align success with learning preferences (Gunter, Estes& Schwab, 2003).

Instructors need to develop a rationale for teaching which includes the motivations for the selection of goals, objective, and content (Gunter, Estes& Schwab, 2003). Rationales should match the learning environment and be applicable to the needs of the students (Gunter, Estes& Schwab, 2003). The acknowledgement of goals in a rationale is important in the planning process but is too broad for lessons or evaluations. Educators need to state measurable objectives for the intended learning. Objectives offer an outline for specific instruction and permit educators and students to concentrate on the essential concepts of the material and serve as a basis to assess success of the instruction (Gunter, Estes& Schwab, 2003).

Objectives should maintain clarity in order to supplement the learning process and have three forms: cognitive, affective, and psychomotor. Cognitive objectives express the information that students are to learn. Affective objectives express the thoughts and viewpoints that students will likely develop. Psychomotor objectives communicate the motor skills that students are to learn. Instruction should incorporate both cognitive and affective objectives and psychomotor in lessons involving physical aspects. Cognitive objectives should also include higher-order thinking skills especially since students remember aspects more when they need to think about them (Gunter, Estes& Schwab, 2003).

Organizing the instruction of a curriculum includes an assessment and articulation process, which aligns curricular progression with instructional methodology. Educators should reflect on all factors relating to students to organize material and adjust accordingly for the needs of the class and individual students (Gunter, Estes& Schwab, 2003). One organization of instruction is units of study and contains a broad concept. Scope, focus, and sequence are three necessary components of unit design. Scope identifies the extent and span of content to be covered, focus establishes what will be highlighted in the content, and sequence indicates the progression in which the content will be given (Gunter, Estes& Schwab, 2003).

Lesson plans are the elements that comprise the unit design. In developing lesson plans educators should restrict the concepts and content to be covered in a lesson to allocate time for the students to evaluate, perform, and comment on what they have learned. In addition, the material relates to previous learning, and regular confirmation to determine if students understand the intended knowledge (Gunter, Estes& Schwab, 2003). Deductive organization presents a generalization, rule, or definition as well as facts related to the generalization, rule, or definition. Students then make conclusions and predictions based on this knowledge. Inductive organization presents precise data and facts and through exploration and interpretation students form generalizations, rules, or definitions. Educators can also employ advance, expository, and comparative organizers in developing lesson plans (Gunter, Estes& Schwab, 2003). Advance Organizers are broad statements that aid students that place the material to be learned into context. Expository organizers originate at a higher spectrum than the ideas within the lesson. Lastly, comparative organizers relate new learning to prior learning (Gunter, Estes& Schwab, 2003). Elements of a lesson are associated with one another and to the reliability unit design; each lesson then should be part of the total learning experience. The objectives of the lesson should correspond to the objectives of the unit and the course (Gunter, Estes& Schwab, 2003; Diamond, 1997; Marsh & Willis, 2003). In addition, planning instruction involves measurement techniques to determine student outcomes, thus aligning evaluation with instruction (Wiggins, 1993).

Improvement of Alignment

Alignment makes an effort to warrant agreement between the intentions of the curriculum and the instruction of the curriculum through testing of what is taught, as a result, little or no room for variations of curriculum implementation exists. Educational leaders then evaluate teachers by how well students' meet set standards by standardized tests (Marsh & Willis, 2003). Vertical alignment associates subjects that have a relationship and a specific order then corresponds the curriculum to the specific order. Therefore, students will obtain essential knowledge before the next subject. Vertical alignment assists with reinforcement of material, offers knowledge to teachers in regard to aptitude of students, improves education for students, and communication between teachers at different educational levels (Melvin, 2007). Horizontal alignment combines curricular objectives transversely between subjects. Students benefit from horizontal alignment because learning transfers to new circumstances and realize the importance of the knowledge (Melvin, 2007).

Standards and objectives for students to learn should be emphasized at every suitable occurrence and not only within a specific grade. The curriculum should also contain objectives for continuing development, which can focus on learning and testing when suitable (Glatthorn, 1999). In addition, the curriculum should contain enrichment units for all students. Teachers can then review the standards and align the written, taught and tested curriculum. By collecting the known state standards and using resourcefulness, teachers can develop units that will interest their students. Teachers can then apply some flexibility, adjusting the curriculum to meet the needs and abilities of the students. In this method, teachers align the tested curriculum with the written curriculum and the written with what is taught. As they implement the curriculum, the teachers can also add objectives for continuing development and enrichment units. This procedure will permit students to perform well on tests and present students with comprehensive units of study that will hold their attention (Glatthorn, 1999).

The implementation of a combined curriculum that is holistic, multicultural, inclusive, student centered, and integrated, will improve curriculum alignment both vertically and horizontally. Furthermore, this type of curriculum will improve student academic progression and aid in consistency of the curriculum. The standards-based curriculum is important but must contain curriculum alignment part of a broader curriculum that encourages lifelong learning (Marsh & Willis, 2003; Wraga, 1999).

A curriculum that includes intrapersonal development encourages the student to associate and discuss learning in regard to his or her own life. When students are able to develop higher-level thinking skills they will be more prone to inquire, infer and combine learning and relationships across subjects (Marsh & Willis, 2003). Teaching and modeling social skills across the curriculum enables students to work cooperatively with other individuals, aids in team building, and builds conflict management skills. Implementing moral development into the curriculum, including responsibility, honesty, reliability, and obligations to impartiality and equality will gradually guide students to reflect on moral issues in society (Marsh & Willis, 2003).

In addition, the curriculum shall be multicultural in order to align the curriculum with the present society. Students will learn to value each culture that is present within the school and communication will develop between cultures. The school needs to incorporate multicultural education across the curriculum obtaining horizontal alignment and should be a component of the curriculum for each subject and at each grade level (Marsh & Willis, 2003). An adaptive curriculum that is inclusive at all grade levels is beneficial to all students and will not only offer students with disabilities equal opportunities for learning but will offer all students an opportunity to embrace differences among individuals. A curriculum that is student-centered focuses on the students and not the material to be covered, curriculum materials, or written goals. Incorporating a student-centered curriculum is applicable to a student's life and community (Marsh & Willis, 2003). When standards-based curriculum combines with high-stakes testing, a limit in the curriculum, inferior instruction, and conical student learning exists since teachers teach to test (Marsh & Willis, 2003). When educators implement a combined curriculum in association with a standards-based curriculum and high-stakes testing, they can assure students a quality education.

Assessment

School districts have a tendency to base learning on test scores even though a deficit of proof linking testing with student achievement exists. A more capable assessment of student learning may be through a student's work and a more superior method of measuring problem solving, reasoning, and critical thinking skills (Marsh & Willis, 2003). Klein (1986) contends that the traditional measured curriculum should not be used alone and that a combination of different designs might better suit students.

Assessments assist in determining outcomes, if the students learned what was taught, this could be accomplished through tests, journals, activities, projects, and questioning (Gunter, Estes& Schwab, 2003; Marsh & Willis, 2003). Students' assessments are essential and in an attempt to aid in student academic progression educators should create tests that correctly measure student learning and amend tests for at-risk learners (Layton & Lock, 2007). Teachers can discover how to better evaluate test results to identify students' learning needs and to revise instruction. Traditional tests can evaluate assessment but include limits of measurement due to isolated learning and concentration on recognition and recall (Marsh & Willis, 2003). Assessment procedures must correspond to learning objectives (Gunter, Estes& Schwab, 2003; Diamond, 1997).

This plan also incorporates authentic assessment, which will better demonstrate student learning. Authentic assessment necessitates the incorporation and relevance of skills essential to answer complex problems and offers better substantiation of the ability of students to flourish in everyday situations. Students have an opportunity to explain themselves, which offers teachers a better understanding of the learning process and immediate feedback for students. In addition, the use of authentic assessment establishes teacher collegiality and collaboration and expands teacher inquiry and reflection. Authentic assessment aligns with the curriculum objectives with various types of learning, basic knowledge and skills, and higher-level knowledge and skills (Cumming & Maxwell, 1999; Marsh & Willis, 2003). Assessment should generate an engaging learning experience for students accentuating students' thinking, application of learning, and uniting learning to their lives.

Addressing Resistance to Change

Change models aid in understanding and increase insight into the change process within an organization. Change models also present concepts as to why change happens, how the change process develops, when change takes place, and the results of change (Kezar, 2001). The Human Relations model would most applicable in this educational institution. Human Relations theory involves individuals in the development procedure, and understands the significance of the morale and assets of individuals (Marion, 2002). Kurt Lewin's (as cited in Marion, 2002) method takes advantage of the strength of groups within the organization. Lewin (as cited in Marion, 2002) contends that individuals are more inclined to agree to change if they contribute to the decision-making process and have the same opinion regarding the need and the extent of change. He and others established that this approach encourages favorable reception of the change by individuals, improves morale, and attitudes regarding change.

The human relations model of change includes the individuals within the organization. When individuals are included in the decision-making process, the organization will be more effective and stakeholder satisfaction will increase (Short & Greer, 2002). In addition, since the individuals within the organization are involved in change, and know the reasons for change, he or she will be more willing to participate (Short & Greer, 2002). Tetrick (as cited in Short & Greer, 2002) discovered that leaders who offer information to their subordinates, as opposed to exerting control, would be more helpful in raising inherent motivation.

The human relations model is the most optimal model to implement for continuous change. In order for the objectives of change to be achieved, the organization should motivate individuals through encouragement and recognition of achievement (Short & Greer, 2002). Leaders within the organization should explain why the change is needed and the importance and what would happen if the change did not occur. Feedback from individuals is also valuable, as well as open table discussion for all involved with the change.

When decision-making authority is as close as possible to individuals who will execute change, implementation is successful. Erickson and Gmelch (as cited in Short & Greer, 2002) note that benefits of including individuals in the decision-making process expands the value of communication, enhances motivation, and improves harmonization of responsibilities and plans. One must define the task that warrants change, develop strategies to accomplish the change, gain commitment from other individuals within the organization, develop communication, and assign individuals to manage the change (Kezar, 2001).
A clear line of communication within an educational organization concerning change will assist in limiting confusion and reducing conflicts. In addition, a few individuals in an organization will resist change no matter what is done to involve them. Often, there can be misinterpretations of resistance and can be other concerns such as technical skills or insufficient resources for change (Short & Greer, 2002). Nonetheless, sharing the elements of change, including why the change is necessary, planning the change, implementation of the change, and receiving feedback from individuals will be advantageous to the success of the change. The learning community must obligate themselves to contribute to the improvement of students' success in the educational institution.

Community

Educational organizations should convey the societal intention of education, and the course content students learn. Educators must reflect on, communicate, and include these goals in planning for instruction (Gunter, Estes& Schwab, 2003). The community also attends to the needs of students by establishing educational goals including proficiency in the fundamental skills, ethical values concerning behavior, respect for self and other individuals, achieve academic success corresponding to one's abilities, and to develop the skills essential to be a productive member of society whether that be employment or additional education (Gunter, Estes& Schwab, 2003; Jorgensen, 2004). The material that is taught to students is consistently regulated by standards and usually aligns with federal, state, and district standards so much so that educators teach to test (Gunter, Estes& Schwab, 2003). All members of the learning community should be aware of the improvement strategy to attain students' success in the educational institution.

Method to Measure Plan's Success

A good plan includes a method to measure progress and a way to recognize success (Santa, 2001). Curriculum alignment is the practice of corresponding the content of a curriculum with the use of tests to assess student learning (Marsh and Willis, 2003). Curriculum alignment necessitates educational institutions to generate consistency in the objectives, textbooks, guides, and tests that construct the curriculum of subjects (Marsh & Willis, 2003). Educational leaders measure academic achievement by standard testing as a means to establish what takes place in schools. Educational institutions perceive effectiveness by increasing academic achievement and identify the quality of the curriculum as a problem for declining academic achievement. Black & William (as cited in Glatthorn, 1999) contend that classroom assessment is the greatest means to increase standards.

Therefore, aligning the taught curriculum with the intended curriculum appears to resolve this dilemma (Marsh & Willis, 2003). In addition, by incorporating the preceding aspects into the educational institution, a more meaningful learning experience can occur for students and educators. Curriculum alignment will transpire both vertically and horizontally, student academic progression will improve as well as consistency of the curriculum (Marsh & Willis, 2003).

Educators within this educational institution should first present a meeting for all individuals involved in the process to explain the changes that will take place. The necessary training and resources should be given to all individuals who will execute the needed changes. Furthermore, during implementation, a mentor who is knowledgeable in the necessary changes should be readily available to assist or answer questions for individuals involved in this process.
Align. The desired outcome is to align the curriculum, instruction, and assessment to attain student achievement.
1. Determine the goals that the educational institution wants to achieve.
2. Identify the individuals who will directly affect the achievement of the goals.
3. Identify measurable goals, objectives and strategies of learning.
4. Identify deadlines and resource constraints that could affect the goals.
5. Identify data sources available.
6. Establish the goal.
7. Select the appropriate type of evaluation measurement.
Analyze. Conduct an analysis of the learning community. The desired outcome is to determine if goals are being met.
1. This includes students, parents, teachers, administrators, and the community.
Diagnose. Determine if the strategy to improve the outcomes of the educational institution are working.
1. Identify and verify achievement of goals.
2. Identify areas that still may need improvement.
4. Pose all possible suggestions for the lack of improvement, if any, including a lack of skill or knowledge, poor motivation, and educational institution barriers.
Plan. The desired outcome is to promote student achievement.
1. List in priority the concepts that need addressed.
2. Develop specifications for the plan.
3. Develop implementation strategy.
(Anonymous, 1996)

Implementation Strategy

The first step in implementation is to evaluate the school's written curriculum. The curriculum should include mastery content, which is specific to grade level, objectives for continuing development, which is emphasized at every opportunity and not specific to one grade level, and enrichment, which teachers can incorporate into the curriculum to meet the needs of the students. After evaluation of the curriculum teachers can then align the written, tested, and taught curriculums. However, sometimes a gap exists between what is taught and what students learn. This can be due to the teacher's inability to make the curriculum meaningful and challenging, teacher's inability to observe student learning, low student motivation, and student's abilities. After alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessment, this gap should lessen (Glatthorn, 1999).

To create a climate of achievement, the educational institution must align the curriculum, instruction, assessments, and address resistance to change and include the community in this effort. A plan to measure the success of this endeavor is also needed. The strategies for the implementation of this plan are illustrated in figure 1. The learning community must all be included and involved in this process to attain the goal and curtail any resistance to change, articulating what is to be taught, how the material is to be taught, and evaluation of learning all support the vision of student success (Tatum, Calhoun, Brown & Ayvazian, 2000).

Conclusion

The remediation plan illustrated in the previous treatise will aid in aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment. The significant role of educational leaders to curriculum, instruction, and assessment is apparent with the alignment of written, taught, and tested curriculum. English and Larson (as cited in Clarke, Stow, Ruebling & Kayona, 2006) assert that the absence of curriculum alignment might generate lower achievement when teachers teach material that is not in the curriculum document and not part of material that will be assessed.

With the differentiation in today's students, the proposal for changes will be center on student learning and not on standards. This in turn will set the alignment so that the curriculum, instruction, and assessment can more effectively serve the educational community (Armstrong, 1997). Educational leaders must attain a curriculum that establishes student learning beyond the test and provide students with knowledge that allows them not only to perform well on accountability assessments, but also to function well in the future (McCarthy, 2007). No single method for curriculum and instruction that will serve all students equally given the diverse population. However, educators can have a starting point and apply suitable adjustments for students when necessary. Effective curriculum and instruction will respond to student's levels of readiness, interests, and methods of learning (Tomlinson, 2005).

References

Anonymous, (1996). Steps in human performance analysis. Training & Development, 50.
Retrieved July 9, 2007 from ProQuest database.

Armstrong, D.G. (1997). Rating curriculum documents. The High School Journal, 81.
Retrieved June 8, 2007 from ProQuest database.

Clarke, N. A., Stow, S., Ruebling, and Kayona, F. (2006). Developing standards-based
curricula and assessments: Lessons learned from the field. The Clearing House,
79(6), 258-261.Retrieved June 10, 2007, from EBSCOhost database.

Cumming, J.J. & Maxwell, G.S. (1999). Contextualising authentic assessment.

Assessment in Education, 6. Retrieved June 21, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Diamond, R. M. (1997). Designing and assessing courses and curricula. A practical guide. Sa
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ediger, M. (1996). The social studies and the ideal. College Student Journal, 30(2), 200-202. Retrieved June 10, 2007, from EBSCOhost database
Glatthorn, A.A. (1999). Curriculum alignment revisited. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision,
15. Retrieved July 7, 2007 from ProQuest database.

Gunter, M. A., Estes, T. H., & Schwab, J. (2003). Instruction: A models approach (4th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Hider, G.R. (2006). What's the big issue? Creating standards-based curriculum.
Technology Teacher, 65. Retrieved June 10, 2007 from EBSCOhost database.

Janzen, M. (1999). Standards testing in grade three: A success? English quarterly, 31.
Retrieved June 10, 2007 from ProQuest database.

Jorgensen, C.H. (2004). Connecting work and education: Should learning be useful,
correct or meaningful? Journal of Workplace Learning, 16. Retrieved June 25, 2007
rom ProQuest database.

Kezar, A. J. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st
Century: Recent research and conceptualizations. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Klein, M.F. (1986). Alternative curriculum conceptions and design. Theory Into Practice,
25. Retrieved June 10, 2007 from University of Phoenix, Selected Readings Page,
EDD 724.

Layton, C.A. & Lock, R.H. (2007). Use authentic assessment techniques to fulfill the
promise of no child left behind. Intervention in School and Clinic.42. Retrieved June
21, 2007 from ProQuest database.

Marion, R. (2002). Leadership in education: Organization theory for the practitioner.
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Marsh, C. J., & Willis, G. (2003). Curriculum: Alternative approaches, ongoing issues
(3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

McCarthy, J.A. M. (2007). NCLB assessment for accountability: Good teaching or
teaching to the test? Perspectives, 33. Retrieved June 10, 2007 from ProQuest
database.

Melvin, J. (2007). Week 4 lecture. Retrieved May 30, 2007 from University of
Phoenix, EDD 724-Instructional Leadership course materials newsgroup.
Sandholtz, J. H, Ogawa, T., Scribner, S. P. (2004) Standards gaps: Unintended
consequences of local standards-based reform. Teachers College Record, 106.
Retrieved June 10, 2007 from EBSCOhost database.

Santa, J.B. (2001). Vision 2020 needs review: Our award-winning plan needs an auditor to
recommend ways to fine-tune performance. The Spectator. Retrieved July 8, 2007 from
ProQuest database.

Short, P.M. & Greer, J. T. (2002). Leadership in empowered schools, themes from
innovative efforts, (2nd edition). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Tatum, B.D., Calhoun, W.R., Brown, S.C. & Ayvazian, A. (2000). Implementation strategies for
creating an environment of achievement. Liberal Education, 86. Retrieved July 8, 2007
from ProQuest database.

Tomlinson, C.A. (2005). Quality curriculum and instruction for highly able students.

Theory into Practice, 44. Retrieved June 26, 2007 from ProQuest database.
Wiggins, G. P. (1993). Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of
testing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wraga, W.G. (1999). The educational and political implications of curriculum alignment
and standards-based reform. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 15. Retrieved
June 20, 2007 from ProQuest database.