or follow @thierck on Twitter.
Angela Freese is the director of research, assessment, and accountability for Osseo Area Public Schools in Maple Grove, Minnesota. Her work enables her to promote systems thinking via collaborative structures that highlight the marriage of curriculum, assessment, and instruction within a learning organization. She has also facilitated work with instructional coaches and curriculum-support teachers to bring the what and the how of learning together for teachers and administrators. She was previously a middle school assistant principal in the North St. Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale School District in Minnesota and an elementary school assistant principal for Rochester Public Schools in Rochester, Minnesota. Her administrative experiences have taken place in schools with highly diverse student populations. Freese has developed high-impact collaborative teams focused on high levels of learning for both staff and students, positive cultures, and curriculum-instruction-assessment models that focus on engaging students as partners in the learning process.
Freese was an implementation associate at the Office of Curriculum and Instruction for Rochester Public Schools. Her focus was on developing and revising coherent district curriculum and instructional strategies aligned with district, state, and national standards. She supported teachers and administrators in curriculum mapping, pacing, and instructional alignment and promoted the use of consistent instructional frameworks and research-based strategies. She analyzed district and site data to improve curriculum and instruction, developed and implemented curricular and instructional processes, and provided coaching and staff development to classroom teachers and district instructional staff.
She has extensive experience in staff development design and implementation. As a key player in instructional alignment projects, Freese collaboratively designed and implemented ongoing, job-embedded staff development opportunities for hundreds of administrators and teachers across various schools and districts. Freese also designed and implemented a plan that enabled building administrators to further their capacity as assessment leaders.
Freese earned a bachelor of arts degree in elementary education at Luther College and a master of arts degree in elementary education at Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota. She became a licensed principal and was also certified in professional development at the University of Minnesota.
To book Tom Hierck or Angela Freese for professional development, contact [email protected].
Foreword
By Douglas Fisher and Nancy Frey
We have spent the past several decades trying to figure out ways to help teachers decide what to teach and how to teach it. In other words, we are in search of the links between curriculum (what to teach) and instruction (how to teach it), which we see as two sides of the same coin. Assessment is the key that guides teachers as they grapple with answering the question of what they will teach and how. Before we discuss that, however, it’s important to consider the influences on curriculum and instruction beyond assessments. Yes, assessment data should guide teachers’ curriculum and instruction, but there are other factors at play.
There have been any number of curriculum wars as various groups attempt to influence what students learn in school. Examples of these curriculum debate topics range from phonics to evolution. Members of the public, especially through standards-setting boards, have profound sway on what gets taught in school. This is both good and bad. We do think that there should be appropriately rigorous expectations for students and that the curriculum needs to ensure that students develop a range of skills and strategies. We also believe that teachers can use assessments to identify the gap between what students already know and can do, and what they still need to learn. This gap is where the content, or curriculum, students need to experience resides.
But the official curriculum is only part of the story. Most political debates are about the official curriculum, but teachers need to think of curriculum in a more expansive way. George Posner (2004) notes that there are at least five aspects to the curriculum:
1. The official curriculum, or written curriculum, gives the basic lesson plan teachers are to follow, including objectives, sequence, and materials. This provides the basis for accountability.
2. The operational curriculum is what the teacher teaches in class and how he or she communicates; this curriculum includes the learning outcomes for the student.
3. The hidden curriculum includes the norms and values of the surrounding society. These are stronger and more durable than the first two aspects, and may be in conflict with them.
4. The null curriculum consists of what is not taught. Educators must consider the reasons why things are not included in the official or operational curriculum.
5. The extra curriculum includes the planned experiences outside of the specific educational session.
The other side of the coin is instruction, or how students will learn the content that will close the gap. There are far fewer political debates about instruction, and teachers are generally able to plan learning experiences for students. Of course, the amount of freedom teachers have to select instructional routines has varied from decade to decade. For example, in the world of reading, the 1990s were marked by scripted and prescriptive approaches to instruction (as well as expected fidelity to a specific curriculum). As we write this foreword, there is a loosening of these expectations, and an increase in the expectation that teachers exercise their professional judgement in deciding how to engage their students in meaningful learning experiences.
Having said that, we are not suggesting that teachers choose randomly from a set of instructional routines and strategies. Instructional decisions should be guided by data. Some of the data can come from educational research. Teachers should know which instructional approaches are more likely than others to ensure that students learn. This is a good starting place for selecting strategies, but it is not the only place. Teachers should use assessment data to determine if the instructional approaches they have selected have impacted students’ learning. If they have, great. If not, then teachers should change their approach. Teachers should never be so enamored with an instructional approach that they continue to use it, even in the face of assessment data that indicate a lack of learning.
See, assessment is the driver that teachers can use to ensure that students learn and that learning becomes unstoppable. Assessments should guide the decisions that teachers make about both the curriculum and the instruction, and those decisions should ensure that students achieve at high levels. That’s why we appreciate this book so much. Tom Hierck and Angela Freese have provided us with a systematic approach to collecting and using assessment data that can guide these very important decisions that teachers need to make. When implemented, the ideas that Hierck and Freese suggest guarantee that students learn and that teachers can exercise their professional expertise in collaboration with their colleagues. But even more important, when strong assessment systems are in place, students assume increased responsibility for their own learning and learn beyond the walls of the classroom. And isn’t that our collective goal—that students learn on their own for the rest of their lives?
Introduction
We can’t solve problems by using the samekind of thinking we used when we created them.
—Albert Einstein
Stories have undeniable power. Storytelling is deeply embedded in all human cultures and has a profound influence on how we
