From Curriculum to Outcomes: One Program's Experience

Mary Carr-Wilt is the Program Manager of the Seattle Public Schools Head Start Program. For over four years, she has been working with her management team to improve the quality of their program, which serves 454 children in 13 schools. In this interview, Mary describes the history of their efforts, decisions they made, and ways they involved teachers in changing their curriculum and assessment system. She is excited about the results she has seen in classroom practices and child outcomes.

Q: What prompted you to make changes in the program?
I was newly hired in 1996 with a strong background in early childhood education and family literacy. At the time, Head Start was anticipating newly revised Program Performance Standards. Within our school district, there were other changes as a result of an internal monitoring and evaluation of our Head Start services. As a program, we were taking a close look at all of our systems. Our management team took the new Head Start regulations very seriously–particularly those related to child outcomes. The State of Washington was also defining language and literacy outcomes for children birth to five, plus the school district was responding to state and national requirements for K-12 educational outcomes. The climate was one of change.

Q: Where did you begin?
It was clear to me that our long-term survival would depend on demonstrating that Head Start was the first important step in the educational experience for Seattle's low-income children. As we began to assess the quality of our program, we realized there was a disparity in our classroom practices. While all of our lead teachers had CDAs (1/3 of the teachers held an Associate or higher degree), there was not a consistent link between their education and the richness of their practice. Our program lacked a strong infrastructure for monitoring and developing teacher competency. We were not reflecting the latest research findings about early childhood education or about language and literacy performance in low-income children. We believed that given the emphasis on literacy outcomes at the federal, state, and district levels, the best place to begin would be to study the mandated outcomes and assess our own practice.

Six classroom teams volunteered to sit on a Literacy Task Force in May of 1998 and were charged with the task of exploring the topics of literacy development and curriculum, language assessment, and prevailing practices in our Head Start classrooms. Consultants on literacy development met with the Task Force to present current research ideas. The new Head Start Program Performance Standards were reviewed and the group concluded that some standards were being addressed in all classrooms but no class was addressing all standards. We experimented with formal and informal language assessment in a small sample of children. We found some discrepancy in teachers' perceptions of the children's language skills versus their actual performance. Some teachers were surprised that the sample of children generally fell below average in vocabulary. The Leadership Team concluded that taken together, this information indicated a need to enhance our teachers' knowledge base in language and literacy as well as to deepen our classroom practices. The fact that about 38 percent of our children come from families whose home language is other than English and the fact that we serve a high number of children with special education needs also called for taking a special look at practices.

Q: Did the language assessment lead to curriculum changes?
Yes, we realized that if we were going to be able to provide the highest quality program for all our children, we would need to develop a strong system for ensuring quality from classroom to classroom. That system would have to link child assessment and goal setting to specific curriculum strategies and have a strong teacher training plan to support implementation.

In my former position with the State Department of Education, I reviewed many educational curricula. I believe that the DLM Early Childhood Program offers a comprehensive literacy-based approach that addresses the needs and values of our program and the district. DLM has 20 monthly curriculum units. Each unit has a teacher's planning guide for activities, children's books, and an assessment tool to mark children's progress. Materials are adapted for use with children who speak Spanish or have disabilities.

The editor of the materials was invited to meet with our Leadership Team to discuss the origins and scope of the materials. The Team agreed that the materials would provide a comprehensive vehicle for us to address and assess Head Start requirements consistently across our classrooms. We asked the members of the Task Force to field test a DLM unit–Friends and Family–for a month and give us their impressions. The Leadership Team wanted to make sure that key players supported the program's adoption if we chose to move forward.

When the editor came back to guide the Task Force on planning for the test unit, we invited all staff, Region X representatives, our special education and mental health partners, and other local early childhood programs. At the end of the pilot month, the Task Force listed their impressions of the DLM program strengths, concerns they felt we would need to address if we adopted the program, and strategies for dealing with the concerns. The classroom teams were largely pleased with the materials–they were well organized, bright, fun, had lots of choices, and were well received by the children. The group consensus was to go forward with the curriculum.

Q: What were the concerns and how did you address them?
The curriculum required a more detailed level of planning from teachers, including the identification of specific strategies linked to individual objectives. The materials called for regular and detailed review of child progress. Time management for planning and documentation was different. To provide some level of familiarity, several members of the Task Force adapted our current planning materials to use with the new program. We began the 1999-2000 school year with a three-day institute on the program, supporting staff to implement the first month's unit. There was a steep learning curve for some teachers and some were worried that having a selection of recommended activities would take away their creativity. Others were worried that they might be evaluated on their ability to use the materials. We reassured them that the curriculum was flexible and that they would have plenty of time to learn about it.

Frances, our Coordinator for Children's Services, met monthly with the teachers to discuss concerns and support them in the development of plans and materials for the units. There was some level of discomfort with the wide range of skill development (2 1/2 - 6 years) that the program addresses in its Developmental Outcomes Checklist. The staff went through this instrument framework and agreed upon the skills that they felt were appropriate for our four-year-olds when they leave Head Start. Staff adopted the final draft last spring and we are testing the outcomes this year.

Q: What assessment strategies are being used in your program?
We use the DIAL as a screening tool when children enter the program. DLM's curriculum units are month-long and at the end of each one, a unit checklist is used. A child's progress is noted across all areas of development. So now, on a regular basis, we collect data to use for curriculum planning and individualization and we have consistent data across all the classrooms. We have been using the DLM Developmental Outcomes Checklist twice a year to report on individual children's progress. We're working on meshing the monthly unit assessments, which are used internally in the classrooms, and the Developmental Checklist. Teachers also record observations on six children every week who are the focus of a weekly team meeting. By the end of the month, each child in the classroom has been discussed. We've set up a research design to see if our children are meeting the child outcomes on the DLM Developmental Checklist. Five children from each classroom will be assessed at three points during the school year. We will analyze the data by gender, home language, and special needs. We want to see if the indicators are correct and if children are progressing in every classroom.

Q: How are these initiatives in curriculum and outcomes linked to staff development?
We've revisited child development because we knew that if the teachers could talk about that, it would help them reflect on their own practice. So we've set up on-site tailor-made courses through a community college. The courses, Applied Child Development and Early Childhood Education Curriculum Planning, use our curriculum as a foundation for planning, discussion, and analysis. One third of our teachers don't have their AA degrees and they're getting credit; other staff members are taking the course to ensure that everyone is at the same theoretical level. We're also taking data from the research project and based on the children's outcomes, giving curriculum support to our teachers where it's needed.

Q: What have been some of the biggest challenges?
Change has been hard for all of us, particularly when we've been comfortable with our original way of doing business, and the change calls for developing new skills. There is always a lot of fear that we may not be able to meet the new requirements. And then there's the reality that in the learning stage, things take a lot longer to get done than when you are proficient. That learning curve period can be very frustrating.

Q: What changes have you seen in the program as a result?
Although we are at the beginning of this journey, early on we observed visible changes in such areas as richness of the classroom environments of our newer teachers and a larger variety of language experiences. Lesson plans across the program are much more specific. Activities are clearly linked to curriculum and child goals.

Q: Where does the program go next?
You could look at this process and think, "Oh, this is just about adopting a new curriculum," but that's only one element of a larger process. It's been more about looking at what needs to be in place to truly be able to ensure equitable high quality assessment and instruction, and child achievement across our program. The materials we've adopted are very important because the careful alignment between assessment and planning eliminates a lot of guesswork for staff. The DLM curriculum offers a framework for discussing child development, individual differences, and best teaching methods. That framework is the critical foundation for supporting staff and children in this challenge to ensure outcomes. We're working on comparing the DLM checklist with the Head Start Outcomes. We're considering whether an additional form of language assessment is needed to complement the checklist.

This year is about getting comfortable with the materials and process, reviewing our child development knowledge, and reflecting on how the two work together. Next year will need to be about monitoring and coaching for consistency. The following year, with a solid foundation of staff confidence and consistent practice, we'll be able to focus on the critical questions about the impact of our practice on language, literacy, and school readiness.

In the meantime, we're beginning the conversations within our district about how best to align our assessment and curriculum strategies with those of the K-12 system, so that it all clearly fits together for families.

Q: What advice would you give other programs grappling with outcomes and assessment issues?
Take this opportunity to find support in your community from people whose business is curriculum and assessment. We've used researchers and consultants from the beginning to inspire us because we don't have time to design it all ourselves. The regulations really require Head Start Directors to know child development to make informed decisions. Several of us got together and set up a series of four seminars for fellow directors; we presented information on curriculum, phonological awareness, and other topics. There is a lot of pressure on the federal and regional offices to enhance an infrastructure for training and support on curriculum, assessment, and staff development.

Mary Carr-Wilt and Frances Jones Baker can be reached at T:206-252-0960; E: mcarr@seattleschools.org and fjonesbaker@seattleschools.org.