DAVID S. MARTIN, PHILIP S. SAIF, AND LINDA THIEL

Curriculum Development:Who Is Involved and How?

Most reondenis to a national survey agreed that teachers should be involved in ctericulum development to ensure 'teacher ownership" ofrium and continuity between development and implemetaton Here, a skilled teacher uorks on a new program for hearing-impairedoilrben developed by teachers at the Kendall Demonstration Elementary School Gallaudet University40

EDLCATIONAL LFADERSHIP

A national survey shows that most school districts preferhomegrown curriculums developed by committees ofteachers and administrators. Local control, however,requires long-term teacher participation that budget-watching school boards may be unwilling to pay for.

T he call for excellence in educa-tion for the 1980s raises numer-ous questions for the profes-

sional educator. For the curriculumspecialist, a special set of questionsarises.

*What curriculum changes areneeded at the district level?

eWho at the district level shouldmake decisions about curriculumdevelopment?

* Who should be actively involvedin curriculum development?

*What are the advantages and dis-advantages of having teachers partici-pate in curriculum development?

*What roles should administratorsand parents play in curriculumdevelopment?

To answer these and other ques-tions, we conducted a national survevof curriculum development practicesin the United States.

Curriculum DevelopmentProcess ModelAn assessment of the curriculum de-velopment practices of today's schooldistricts is especially useful whensome model exists with which to com-pare them. Our model for maximizingteacher involvement in curriculum de-velopment requires a gradual imple-mentation over a two- to three-yearperiod. It involves ten steps.

1. A teacher committee meets towrite'a rationale and objectives for thecurriculum; members then solicitfeedback from peer teachers in theirschools.

2. The committee revises the ratio-nale and objectives based on this feed-back and proceeds to develop studentactivities. Subcommittees may take re-sponsibility for different groups of ac-tivities and then critique each other'swork

3. Subcommittees recommend ma-terials and evaluation methods. Theentire committee again solicits feed-back from peer teachers on theseproducts.

4 Committee members identifyand briefly train pilot teachers whoagree to test the curriculum andprovide feedback based onimplementation.

5. A new teacher committee isformed (with some members from theprevious committee) to collect andevaluate the pilot-test data

6. This second committee revisesthe curriculum based on pilot-testresults.

7. The revision is brought forwardto the administration and schoolboard for final adoption.

8. The pilot teachers become a coregroup of trainers of other teacherswho will implement the curriculum.(Preferably, there is one pilot teacherfrom each of several schools, so thistraining can be decentralized.)

9. A third committee may beformed (again composed of somemembers from either of the two previ-ous committees) to carry out finalrevisions based on the year-long pilottest and to monitor the implementa-tion itself.

10. Higher-level training, using thepilot teachers as catalysts, is conductedfor teachers who are experienced inthe new program to keep the curricu-lum vital.

This process is continuous, takingup to three years, and involves a largepercentage of the teachers who will beexpected to use the developed curric-ulum. This model was built on thework of Miel (1946), Pritzkau (1959),and others, who established the casefor a slow but deliberate process of

DECEMBER 1986/Jk uIARY 1987

-J

locally based curriculum developmentdesigned to strengthen teacher com-mitment to implementing change.

The SueyTo help us answer the fundamentalquestion, "To what extent is such ahigh level of curriculum developmentreally carried out in American publicschools?" we developed, adminis-tered, and analyzed a survey of curric-ulum directors or administrators inpublic school systems. The 12-iteminstrument (see fig. 1) surveyed pro-cesses used at the local school districtlevel for curriculum development orrevision. Items were based on currentpractice and focused specifically onthe level of involvement of variouspersonnel.

All questionnaires were coded forethnic composition of the school sys-tem, size of the school system accord-ing to the number of students en-rolled, dollars spent per pupil, andtype of school system (urban, subur-ban, or rural) for each recipient select-ed at random. Table 1 provides aprofile of the characteristics of theresponding districts. The survey wassent to 200 districts of which 91 re-sponded. Responses for each surveyitem were tabulated across the totalgroup. A content analysis of narrativesections, particularly those relating tothe local curriculum developmentprocess, was carried out. We also ex-amined the fit between responses andour own curriculum developmentmodel.

The ResultThe completed survey provides a pic-ture of curriculum development inAmerican public schools today.

1. Curriculum master plan. Morethan two-thirds of the districts report-ed having a master plan for curricu-lum development. In 60 percent ofthese districts, the plan was initiatedby an assistant superintendent. Lessfrequently, it was guided by a directorof curriculum or instruction.

2. Areas of curriulum develop-ment. All respondents except one indi-cated that they had been involved indeveloping curriculum. These districtsreported that approximately six curric-ulum areas had been developed orrevised during the past five years. We

found no relationship between thesize of the school district and thenumber of curriculum fields that weredeveloped.

The major subject areas-language

arts, mathematics, science, and socialstudies--were the most frequently de-veloped or revised. The actual subjectsand courses listed by the respondentswere classified as shown in Table 2,

Number of students in your school system:Your position title:

1. Some school districts try to have a 3- to 5-year plan for curriculum revision in theirdistrict.

a. Do you have such a master plan for curriculum development?yes no

b. If yes: What is the title of the person under whose leadership it was developed?

c. In your district, have you been involved in developing curriculum?yes no

2. How many curriculum subject areas, if any, were developed or revised during thepast 5 years?

Please specify which ones:

3. Briefly list the steps you normally take in your district for developing curriculum:

4. To what degree did each of the following constituencies participate in the curricu-lum development process? Please circle only one in each line:

Not at Very little Some Heavily Notall input input involved applicable

Community Representative(s)Board of EducationSuperintendentAssistant SuperintendentDirector of CurriculumPrincipalsAssistant PrincipalsHeads of departmentsSupervisorsTeachersTeacher AidesParentsStudentsConsultant(s)Other:

Please specify

000000000000000

222222222222222

333333333333333

N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A

5. From your experience, who should be involved in the curriculum developmentprocess? (You may check as many as apply):

Administrators - Board of Education- Supervisors Parents-- Teachers Community representatives- Students College professors

- Independent consultants

6. Please rank the following items on their effectiveness for changing curriculum. Srepresents the highest rank; 1 represents the lowest.

Buy a curriculum from a commercial company.__ Ask a college professor of curriculum to do it.

Hire a consultant.Use a curriculum that was tried in another school district.

__ Do it yourself.

Fig. 1. Gallaudet University Curriculum Development Process Survey

EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

I

-

111111111111111

4Z

using the 1981 Classification of In-structional Programs developed by theNational Center for EducationStatistics.

Uniformly high effort was directed

at developing or revising language artsand mathematics curriculums byschool districts of all sizes. The largerthe district, however, the more oftenthe science curriculum was revised.

7. Based upon your experience, do you favor using committe-s in curriculum develop-ment?

yes noIf yes, what is the ideal number of members on a curriculum committee:_ _

Composition of coTmittee (e.g., teachers, parents)

If no, what is your rationale? Please check as many as apply:-- Committees do not produce what is intended.

Committees tend to be a waste of time.People involved do not have the expertise or adequate background.

- A committee is difficult to manage._ Other:

8. Which of the following do you favor?

_ A national curriculumA local curriculum

__ A state curriculum__ Other:

(please specify)

9. Whose responsibility is it to ensure that a new curriculum is implemented after it isdeveloped?

__ The school principal__ The teacher

The director of curriculumOther(s)

(please specify)

10. From your experience, how do you know that a curriculum is being properlyimplemented? Briefly state your opinion.

11. Some school districts favor a quantitative or statistical evaluation of curriculum,while others favor qualitative, descriptive evaluations.

Briefly, where do you stand in regard to this issue?

12. General comments about effective curriculum development processes:

Check One:__ I would appreciate a summary of the survey results; my name and address

__ I am not interested in receiving a copy of the survey results.

Fifty-six percent of the small districtsworked on the science curriculum,compared to 64 percent of mediurm-sized districts and 73 percent of largedistricts. Conversely, smaller districtsmost often cited low-incidence sub-jects, which we grouped into the "oth-er subjects" category. Sixty-one per-cent of small districts worked on"other" curriculum fields, comparedto 49 percent of medium-sized dis-tricts and 35 percent of large districts.

3. Tbe curriculum deveopmentprocess. We asked the districts to de-scribe how their schools developedcurriculum. The most frequently men-tioned activities included:* assessing needs, including involve-

ment of teachers through some type ofsurvey (52 percent);* allocating resources, including the

establishment of curriculum commit-tees (68 percent);

*establishing a scope and sequence(48 percent);

"We have noevidence of adecline in the useof textbooks, butcommercialcurriculumsapparently arenot used as thefoundation forcurriculumsdeveloped locally."

DECEMBER 1986/JANUARY 1987 43

I.

* evaluating curriculum (43 percent);and* obtaining administrative approval

(35 percent).It is troubling but not surprising thatfew of the districts reported using

prior empirical research to shape thecurriculum being developed (27 per-cent). In addition, few districts tookthe time to write a philosophy (18percent) or to pilot the new curricu-lum (12 percent).

4. Constituency participation incurriculum development. We askedthe districts to indicate the degree towhich different constituencies actuallyparticipated in curriculum develop-ment. In a follow-up question, weasked them to indicate which constitu-encies should be involved. The re-sponses to these paired questions pro-vided a way of comparing curriculumspecialists' theories with practice.

Table 3 shows the average degree towhich each constituency was involvedin curriculum development. Heavy in-volvement was reported for instruc-tional professionals and directors ofcurriculum. Assistant superintendentsand principals also had a great deal ofinvolvement. Community-based con-stituencies, especially parents, had lessinput. Students, on the average, hadlittle input, and teacher aides almostnone.

EDUCATIONAL LFADERSHIP

Table 1Characteristics of Survey

Sample 200 school districts

Reurned surven 91 school districts

Dibidc size 30 percent-6,000+ students50 percent-4,000 to 6,000 students20 percent-less than 4,000 students

Dist location 45 percent-suburban40 percent-rural15 percent-urban

Average minority population 16 percent

Table 2Percentage of School Districts Reporting Development or Revision of Curriculum Areas over the Past Five Years

Language Arts

Math

Social Sciences

Sciences

Other Subjects'

Home Economics

Art/Music

Foreign Language

Physical Education

All Subjects

.1, 1, 1 * 1,I I I I0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percentage of Districts

*Includes career education, study skills, media, business, typing, computers, vocational, driver education, humanities, psychology,industrial and practical arts.

..

Table 3Degree of Partidpation in Curriculum Developnment by Maor Consituendes

Professionals involvedwith instruction

Department Heads

Supervisors

Teachers

Other Professionals

Superintendents

Assistant Superintendents

Directors of Curriculum

Principals

Assistant Principals

Community Members

Board of Education Members

Community Representatives

Parents

Others

Students

Teacher Aides

Consultants

Not at all Very little Some

Degree of Participation

DECEMBER 1986/ANUARY 1987

Heavily involved

Table 4Average Rankings of Effectiveness of Modes of Curriculum Change

Do it yourself

Use curriculum triedin another district

Hire a consultant

Buy a curriculum froma commercial company

Ask a college professorto do it

1 2 3 4 5Least effective Most effective

45

Table 3 also indicates that at least parents, and community representa- volved, and about one-third that col-two-thirds of the respondents thought tives should be involved in curriculum lege professors should participate.that administrators, supervisors, teach- development. About half thought that While there appears to be support forers, students, the board of education, independent consultants should be in- some degree of involvement by a wide

range of constituencies, the degree ofinvolvement supported by administra-tors remains undetermined.

All constituencies-teachers, stu-dents, parents, community representa-

Curricululm Development at The Center for Learning tives, and boards of education-showed higher rates of participation in

TAP, Teachers/Authors/Publishers, is a 15-year-old network of master teachers dgih that supported such involveand professional writers who team up at annual workshops to create high- ment. Respondents' rather high sup-

quality curriculum materials. TAP publications are used widely throughout the port for parent involvement may be

United States, Canada, and Australia. anprftcpotin attributed to their need to obtain com-TAP is sponsored by The Center for Learningips and munity suppa nonprofit orporation curriculum revi-

funded largely by grants, donations, and sales. Providing fellowships and munity supportes for curthericulum rdy. i

secretarial and editorial assistance, the Center brings together approximately sion and requires further study40 teacher-authors each summer at John Carroll University in Cleveland, Ohio. The universal involvement of teach-

TAP's pnmary goal is to enable practicing teachers to become published ers in curriculum development is sig

authors of exemplary curriculums that overcome textbook limitations and nificant, although the survey does notenable teachers to become more effective. The Center's board of directors is reveal the actual quality of their in-

between the extent of teacher involve-schools ment in curriculum development and

The Center's philosophy, integral both to the process and product, is that a

classroom cannot be a values vacuum. The TAP teacher-authors endorse this e n ra

philosophy and express specific values throughout the five published r the size of the school system, the typeThese values reflect the diversity of the United States, and the Center onetwork f educational setting, the percentageexemplifies that unity amid diversity is not only possible but made strorIger of minority students, or dollars spent

when universals are probed respectfully. Pe stlentre.llo .s w "s

The TAP language arts curriculum for grades 9-12 comprises 25 units, I ttgi fo

including, for instance Experiencing Shakespeare I and II; Speech; American tur change We asked the districts to

Literature I and II, English, and World Literature; Tools of Nonfiction; and rank the effectiveness of five dierent

Advanced Placement Composition. Social studies for unior high include two way s of bringing about curricuilum

units in U.S. History for grade eight and one Geography/Wnorld Cultures unit chsnge Tablindiat thaiut th

for grade seven. High school social studies include from two to four units each change. Table 4 indicates that the high-

of Advanced Placement U.S. History, Economics, U.S. Government, U.S. )was assigned to do it yourself

History, and World History. t

The Center is currently involved in a two-year prolect to develop basic skills eUse a curriculum that was tried in

units. Aided by grants from the Cleveland Foundation and the George Gund another school district" and fhire a

Foundation, the Center is piloting the units and an inservice program in 20 consultant" were ranked moderately

Cleveland public schools. To be refined by the TAP teacher-authors, these high as effective change strategies (32

materials are scheduled for publication in 1988.' and 3 1, respectively) Buy a curricu-Plans for the future include additional units, cyclical revisions of all series, lum from a commercial company was

and inservice programs. Last fall the Center started a Social Studies Newsletter, ranked relatively low (2c3), as was ask

which is being followed this autumn by an English Newsletter. a college professor of curriculum toThrough these formal means of communication and participation in the I doi2 )owevr of ths cla to

annual workshops, TAP teachers are able to use their own knowledge and do it" (2 However these last two

grass-roots organization that ~ dedicated to the it' of respondents do favor curriculumexperiences to create a grss-rots organization that is dedicated to the responses indicate that a large minor

development of exemplary curriculum materials adoption using the work of some out

T. Materials that are written for use in all schools, public and private, are distributed by side agencyW. C. Brown Publishers, 2460 Kerper Blvd., Dubuque, IA 52001 (phone. 1-800-922-76%) Respondents were asked if they fanitsw A deal by arants from the C evelavd Foundailablonade Respondnstas were raked iofatly fa-Other materials, written specifically for Catholic schools and parishes vored national, state, or local curricu-directly from the Center for Learning.lums (we asked about national curric

dByRectly from ffer, t .M.,ExecutivThe Center for Learning, 2 ulum to find out whether the

Bylliroecar. EeuieDr ,The Center for hLearning, 20770 respondents favored development of a

r kexists now); 84 percent chose localThis choice is consistent with "do it

yourself' as the favored strategy for

effecting curriculum change Nearly 25percent of the respondents favored a

state curriculum, but only 1 percentfavored a national curriculum

4+6 EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

:'-, I .L;o; ?. ' At · *- V _

All 91 responding districts favoredcurriculum development by commit-tee. The average preferred committeesize, 10 persons, was not related signif-icantly to the size of the district. Nearlyall of the respondents favored teachermembership on these committees,more than three-fourths favored par-ticipation by administrators, and halffavored parental involvement.

The low average rate of actual par-ent involvement in curriculum devel-opment contrasts with apparent gener-al support for parent participation,particularly on curriculum commit-tees. Parents had little input into thecurriculum process in 88 percent ofthe districts.

Of those districts that believed par-ents should participate, more than halfreported that parents were eitherheavily involved or had some input.(The survey inquired about the degreeof parent involvement but not theactual nature of their participation.)Findings suggest that significant paren-tal involvement in curriculum devel-opment exists only where it is activelysupported by the schools, and furtherthat the nature and degree of thisparticipation varies from district todistrict

We found significant involvement ofthe school principal, although not ashigh as that of teachers. Recent litera-ture in the field of curriculum change(e.g., Berman and McLaughlin 1978)indicates that building-level commit-ment by principals has been a key tosuccessful institutionalization of pro-gram change; results of our survevappear to confirm this research.

6. Curriculum implementation. Weasked the districts to tell us whoseresponsibility it was to ensure that anew curriculum was implemented.Nearly all respondents (89 percent)agreed the primary responsibility rest-ed with the principal. However, abouthalf of the respondents indicated thatteachers and directors of curriculumhad responsibility for implementation.This point should stimulate school dis-tricts to reexamine the potential ofcombined leadership in curriculumdevelopment.

We also found that, statistically, thehigher the frequency of teacher in-volvement in implementation, thehigher the frequency of curriculumdirector involvement. However, nosignificant relationship was found be-tween principals' and teachers' re-

sponsibilities. From these findings wecan hypothesize two patterns of imple-mentation: one at the building levelguided by principals, and one at thedistrict level possibly coordinated by adirector of curriculum.

With an open-ended question, weasked the districts to indicate how theycould tell if a curriculum is beingproperly implemented More than 70percent reported that they relied onclassroom observations by supervisorsor principals, a view consistent withthe perception that principals arelargely responsible for curriculum im-plementation. Forty percent said theyrelied on standardized test results;nearly 30 percent reported usingmeetings or teacher lesson plans tojudge success of implementation. Mostdistricts relied on more than onemethod.

7. Curriculum evaluation. Weasked the districts whether they fa-vored qualitative (descriptive) orquantitative (statistical) evaluations ofcurriculum. Sixty-two percent favoredboth. About a quarter favored onlyqualitative evaluation information,while only 13 percent favored a quan-titative approach alone. This may beinterpreted in at least three ways: ei-ther quantitative methods are notcommonly understood, or a new eval-uation trend stressing qualitative ap-proaches is taking effect, or schooldistricts tend to prefer more informalmeasures of success over objective testinstruments. Clearly, more study isneeded here.

8. Comments. Content analysis ofthe unstructured comments section in-dicated that most respondents sup-ported "teacher ownership" of curric-ulum-again consistent with theresults of items four and five. Com-ments included the following:

"Teachers need to be involved rightfrom the stan"

"If teachers don't feel committed [to thechange), no one else will."

"I can't imagine trying a change in cur-riculum without getting the teachers toparticipate in the decision."

Of equal weight, however, is the callamong the respondents for both peri-odic updating of curriculum and foradministrative support for teachersimplementing change. This endorse-ment of administrative support forcurriculum development also is con-sistent with the response for item 5.

DecEMBER 1986/JANuARY 1987 47

Implicatons of the ResuItsAssuming that this random samplingof school systems in the U.S. yieldedan honest profile of current practice,the following inferences from the re-sults may be useful to curriculum lead-ers and to students of curriculumdevelopment

1. Basic core subjects (language,reading, and math) are still the focusof systematic curriculum developmentefforts at the local level.

2. A large proportion of school dis-tricts, perhaps due to the leadership ofthose responsible for curriculum de-velopment and revision, recognize theimportance of systematic curriculumdevelopment, as opposed to the rapid,wholesale adoption of preparedcurriculum.

3. The heavy involvement of teach-ers within curriculum committees ap-pears to characterize school districtsthat develop curriculums locally. How-ever, the model we developed andpresented earlier calls for wideningcircles of teacher involvement overseveral years; that model currentlydoes not appear to be in use on a widescale.

4. Districts involved in curriculumdevelopment make little systematicuse of prior research.

5. The development of a philoso-phy for the curriculum appears tohave a low priority.

6. Evaluative instruments are rarelyused to refine the curriculum objec-tives for a new locally developedcurriculum.

7. The active participation of build-ing administrators (principals and su-pervisors) is a feature of the curricu-lum development process in manyschool districts. This involvement maybe an implicit recognition of the im-portance of administrative support ininstitutionalizing a curriculum change.

8. We have no evidence of a declinein the use of textbooks, but commer-cial curriculums apparently are notused as the foundation for curricu-lums developed locally. Students ofcurriculum have long known thatadopted curriculums often differ fromwhat teachers actually teach. Furtherstudy is needed, however, to learnwhether districts develop local curric-ulums to match a published series orpurchase material that fits their owncurriculum specifications

"Respondents wereasked if they favorednational, state, orlocal curcurricums;...84 percentchose local."

A sizable minority, however, wouldprefer to purchase a commercial cur-riculum (see table 4); possible expla-nations here would include lack offunds for local development, lack oftrained curriculum leaders, interest inmeasuring teacher performanceagainst some external "standard," orthe conviction that a local school dis-trict cannot develop a complete curric-ulum that can compete with tested,high-quality commercial materials de-veloped by well-financed publishers.

9. Nearly half of the respondentsaffirmed the importance of a balancedevaluation design. Many curriculumwriters (e.g., Eisner 1979) have ex-pressed concern about the exclusiveuse of quantitative evaluation. Perhapsthese writers and conference speak-ers, along with training programs forcurriculum leaders, may be havingsome positive effect; alternatively, wemight infer that many school districtsare satisfied with more informal judg-ments of the success of a new curricu-lum. Again, further study is needed.

10. The frequency of the commentabout the importance of teacher own-ership in curriculum development isalso evidence that top-down modelsare inadequate for bringing aboutmeaningful and lasting curriculumchange. This inference, again, de-serves further investigation.

11. The relationship. between de-velopment and implementation appar-ently is not clearly defined in manydistricts. The process of curriculumdevelopment has multiple steps thatusually culminate in a product. At thatpoint, curriculum implementation,also a multistep process, begins. These

two processes should be seen as acontinuum, with implementationsmoothly following or even overlap-ping slightly with the curriculum de-velopment stage. They both shouldinvolve many of the same professionalpersonnel to assure this continuity, asillustrated in the model presented ear-lier. However, curriculum develop-ment and implementation are in factoften carried out separately; frequent-ly leaders from a central office (with orwithout teacher involvement) developcurriculum, and then teachers andprincipals implement it. Curriculumleaders should strive to create a con-tinuum that ensures consistency.

Our representative sample of cur-riculum leaders indicates that thetrend is to involve teachers broadly incurriculum committees. Time and ad-ditional research will answer the larg-er question of how deep and lastingthis development will be, particularlyin the face of shrinking school bud-gets. The challenge for American cur-riculum leaders is to maintain andenhance the teacher-ownership modelwith its requirement for large invest-ments of time, and to resist the tempta-tion to surrender curriculum deci-sions to outside forces, both at stateand local levels. l

References

Berman, P., and M. W. McLaughlin FederalPrograms Supporting EducationalChange, Vol VIII: Implementing andSustaining Innovations Washington,D.C.: U.S Office of Education, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,1978.

Eisner, E. The Educational ImaginationBoston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979

Miel, A Changing the Curriculum A SocialProcess. New York: Appleton-Century,Inc., 1946

Pritzkau, P. T. Dynamics of CurriculumImprovement Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1959

Authors' note. We wish to acknowledgewith great appreciation the valuable assist-ance of Helen Jimenez-Ulloa and HazelJohansen, both of Gallaudet University

David S. Martin is Dean, School of Educa-tion and Human Services, Gallaudet Uni-versity, Washington, DC 20002. Phlllp S.Saif is Affiliate Professor, School of Profes-sional Studies, George Mason University,Fairfax, VA 20030. linda hield is Special-ist, Research and Evaluation, GallaudetUniversity, Washington, DC 20002.

48 EDUATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Copyright © 1986 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.