Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Junior Curriculum Review & Evaluation
A school’s experience – St. Louis Secondary School Dundalk
Curriculum Review – original rationale 2001
• Unmanageable timetable – too many constraints• Additional subjects on the curriculum – SPHE,
CSPE• Religious Education as an exam. subject• Pressure on the weaker students• Pressure on teachers• Not enough time for subjects• Too many subjects
Timeline• Autumn 2001 – constraints identified
• Task group set up – looked at models in other schools; concern re. French & Science
• Dec. 2001 – surveyed students
• Jan. 2002 – whole staff debate on issues identified; agreed a review necessary
• Feb. 2002 – report to BoM
• No further work for a year
Timeline• March 2003: agreed to reduce subject load by one.• Task Group re-formed with some new members –
planned for introduction of revised curriculum in Sept. 2004 and ready by March 2004 for parents of incoming 1st Year.
• Nov. 2003 – sample combinations of subjects and options circulated and discussed.
• Jan. 2004: proposals of Task Group accepted by Staff and forwarded to BoM.
• Sept. 2004: new curriculum commenced.• Sept.2004 – Jun. 2007 – new curriculum implemented
for 1st cohort• Sept. 2007: evaluation of curriculum commenced.
Intended outcomes of initial review
• Reduce the exam. subject load on students
• Space on timetable for SPHE and Pastoral Care
• French, Business and Science core subjects in 1st Year
• To improve the uptake of Science at J.Cert. and Senior Cycle
Intended outcomes of initial review
• To help students make a more informed choice of subjects at the end of 1st Year
• To reduce the constraints on the timetable
Undertaking given to evaluate the revised curriculum when the first cohort had gone through Junior Cert.
Revised curriculum - Sept. 2004
• Key change – introduction of an “almost taster” programme in 1st Year
• Number of core subjects increases from 9 to 13 subjects in 1st Year including French, Science & Business
• two additional from a list of 5 others i.e. any two from German, Spanish, Art, Technology and Home Economics – 15 subjects in total
• Music core in 1st Year only and then an option
Revised curriculum - Sept. 2004
• Students drop 2 subjects at the start of 2nd Year
• Students take 11 instead of 12 subjects to Junior Cert.
• 1 period per week for Pastoral Care/Guidance/Choir
WORKSHOP 1
What steps and structures would you take if you want to carry out a review?
Junior Certificate ReviewFactors affecting curricular provision - • The Current Staff• School Ethos & Traditions• Regulations of the DES• Wishes of Parents• Wishes of BOM/trustees• Marketability of the school• Needs of students• Local Business links/Workplace• Society/Social Values• School Facilities• Senior Cycle Options• Other factors
Junior Certificate Review
Areas of Experience:• Language, Literature & Communication• Mathematics Studies & Applications• Science & Technology• Social, Political & Environmental Education• Guidance, Counselling & Pastoral Care• Religious & Moral Education• Physical Education• Arts Education
Junior Certificate Review
CURRICULUM PRINCIPLES»Breadth & Balance»Relevance»Quality»Coherence»Continuity»Progression
Junior Certificate Review
Curriculum Review Summary –
The school curriculum review highlights the following issues:
»Short – term – »Long – term –
Looking to the future
• Evaluation of the quality of the current curriculum
• How do we determine the extent to which we have achieved the original intended outcomes?
Evaluation of Current Curriculum
• How do we go about conducting an evaluation of the current Junior Curriculum?
Evaluation of Current Curriculum
Three Questions:
• How are we doing with the revised curriculum?
• How will we find this out?
• What do we do then?
WORKSHOP 2What criteria would you use to evaluate
your current curriculum?Individual response:
Group response:
Report back -
Evaluation of Current Curriculum
Stakeholders must be involved – patrons,
BoM, Staff, Parents, Students,
Local community
4 Steps in evaluation:
• Philosophy – focus is on teaching & learning; constant feedback essential; commitment to meaningful change & development
Evaluation of Current Curriculum
• Procedures: who is this for? What’s in it for students/teachers? Reflection on findings as work progresses; involvement of an external facilitator to assist objectivity
• Criteria: identification of preset priorities, targets; statements of desired outcomes; keep partners informed
• Evidence: qualitative – perceptions of students, staff, parents on the revised curriculum; quantitative – exam. results; subject uptake levels etc.
Framework for Evaluation
Task Group worked with an SDPI facilitator and raised the following questions and issues:
• What are the issues in relation to curriculum that we should explore?
• What is good practice in relation to these?• What is the focus of this evaluation?• Consultation – who & how?• Data gathering methods• Timescale for the evaluation• Success criteria – what are these?• Communication – with the partners
Evaluating quality of the current curriculum -
Issues to explore in relation to the original intended outcomes –
• Science as core – impact on uptake at J.Cert. & Senior Cycle
• Subject choice – better informed students?• Are we catering effectively for the weaker
students?• Constraints on the timetable – reduced?• Impact of RE as a compulsory exam. subject?• Impact on traditional experience of music in the
school
Evaluating quality of the current curriculum
• Does the current curriculum enhance personal development?
• Does the current curriculum enhance self esteem/self confidence?
• Impact on subjects such as Music, Technology, German, Physics
• Uptake of subjects at Higher Level• Impact of banding/streaming – mixed ability
teaching• Implications for staff?
Work initiated by Task Group in 2007 - 2008
• Comparison of student outcomes of JC 2007 with 2006 and 2005
• Looked at uptake of higher and ordinary levels across a range of subjects at JC
• Looked at performance across a range of subjects
• Set up a Parents’ Focus group to help with consultation
Work initiated by Task Group
• Pilot survey of parents of present 5th and Transition Year students re. perceptions on the revised curriculum
• Adaptation of this questionnaire for use with students and staff
• Collation of current research – e.g. NCCA Longitudinal Study; Mixed Ability Teaching; Equality & Diversity in curriculum
• Facilitated session with all staff on mixed ability teaching (SLSS)
Sample results - French
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
%
1 2 3
Year
French - Results HL
%A HL
%B HL
%C HL
%D HL
%EF
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
1 2 3
Year
French
% of cohort
%HL
%OL
Sample results - Science
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
%
1 2 3
Year
Science
% of cohort
%HL
%OL
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
%
1 2 3
Year
Science - Results HL
%A HL
%B HL
%C HL
%D HL
%EF
Future work – 2008 - 2009
• Survey of staff on their views of the current curriculum – identify areas of concern
• Survey of students on levels of satisfaction• Consultation with parents’ group• Address areas not dealt with since initial review –
mixed ability teaching and RE as an exam. subject• Make recommendations for areas of development • Report to BOM
• References:School Development Planning
– Curriculum Review at Junior Cycle (SDP & NCCA)
– Draft Guidelines for Post-Primary School Unit 5 Approaches to Evaluation
Siobhan GreerSt. Louis Secondary School, Dundalk, Co. [email protected]
