CURRICULUM

ALIGNMENT
 This book is dedicated to my two daughters, Allison and Sara, now
making their way toward their own destinies. Allison just received her
PhD in nursing from Yale. Sara is working successfully as a physical
therapist, having received her doctorate from the University of
Southern California. I am very proud of you both.
 CURRICULUM
ALIGNMENT

Research-Based Strategies for

Increasing Student Achievement

DAVID A. SQUIRES
Copyright © 2009 by David A. Squires

All rights reserved. When forms and sample documents are included, their use
is authorized only by educators, local school sites, and/or noncommercial or
nonprofit entities that have purchased the book. Except for that usage, no part
of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any
information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publisher.

For information:

Corwin Press SAGE India Pvt. Ltd.

A SAGE Company B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
2455 Teller Road Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044
Thousand Oaks, California 91320 India
www.corwinpress.com
SAGE Ltd. SAGE Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.
1 Oliver’s Yard 33 Pekin Street #02–01
55 City Road Far East Square
London, EC1Y 1SP Singapore 048763
United Kingdom

Printed in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Squires, David A.
Curriculum alignment: research-based strategies for increasing
student achievement / David A. Squires.
p. cm.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-1-4129-6006-9 (cloth)
ISBN 978-1-4129-6007-6 (pbk.)
1. Curriculum planning—United States. 2.
Education—Standards—United States. 3. Educational tests and
measurements—United States. 4. Educational accountability—United States.
I. Title.

LB2806.15.S732 2009
375’.001—dc22 2008004873
This book is printed on acid-free paper.

08 09 10 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Acquisitions Editor: Debra Stollenwerk

Editorial Assistant: Allison Scott
Production Editor: Appingo Publishing Services
Cover Designers: Scott Van Atta and Michael Dubowe
Graphic Designer: Karine Hovsepian
 Contents

List of What Districts Can Do by Chapter

List of Figures

Preface

Acknowledgments

About the Author

About the Balanced Curriculum Web Site

Part I. Alignment and Instruction, Textbooks, and Standardized

Tests

1. Introduction to Curriculum Alignment

What Is Alignment?
Alignment Problems: Too Many Standards, Too Little Time
The Alignment Matrix

2. Alignment and Instruction

The Reform Up Close Study and Alignment’s Dimensions
Instructional Alignment and Professional Development
Three Smaller Studies of Instructional Alignment
What Districts Can Do

3. Alignment and Textbooks

Textbook to Test Alignment
Summary of Findings for Studies of Textbook to Test Alignment
Quality of Textbook Instruction
 Modifying the Use of Textbooks to Improve Alignment
Summary of Findings for Textbook Alignment
What Districts Can Do

4. Alignment and Standardized Tests

Marzano’s Standards Compilation and the Web Site for Achieve,
Inc.
The Webb Studies: Aligning State Standards, Assessments, and
Policies
Webb’s WAT Web Site
The Browder Study: Alignment in Special Education
Vertical Alignment
Science Inquiry and Alignment to Three Large-Scale Assessments
The Bowe and Kingsbury Study
The National Center for Educational Statistics Study (2007): Cut
Scores for State Tests and the NAEP
English and Steffy: Backloading the Curriculum
Summary of Findings for Studies of Alignment of State Tests
What Districts Can Do

Part II. Alignment and Mastery Learning, Project 2061, and

TIMSS

5. Alignment, Reteaching, and Mastery Learning

A Personal Note
Introduction
Bloom’s Theory of School Learning
Cohen: Instructional Alignment
The Wishnick Study
Summary of Findings for Studies of Mastery Learning
What Districts Can Do

6. Ideas From Project 2061 of the American Association for the

Advancement of Science
AAAS Project 2061
Summary of Findings for Project 2061
What Districts Can Do
7. Curriculum Makes a Difference—Alignment and the TIMSS
Analysis
The TIMSS Methodology
Findings—Curriculum and Student Achievement
What Districts Can Do

Part III. The Aligned Curriculum

8. Criteria for a Useful and Usable Curriculum Incorporating

Alignment
The Many Meanings of Curriculum
The Common Definition of Curriculum
Our Definition of Curriculum
Criteria for a Useful and Usable Curriculum

9. Addressing Alignment Through a Curriculum Design: The

Balanced Curriculum Model
Results From School Districts
The Balanced Curriculum Model
Is the Balanced Curriculum Useful and Usable?
What Districts Can Do—A Conclusion

10. How the Balanced Curriculum Meets This Book’s

Recommendations for Districts
Summary of Recommendations

11. Summary of Alignment Research and Recommendations

Summary of the Book
Summary of the Book’s Chapters
The Research Posted on the Alignment Matrix
Major Findings From the Alignment Research

Resource: Ten Criteria for Structuring a Useful and Usable

Curriculum

References
Index
 List of What Districts Can Do by Chapter

CHAPTER 2

#2–1 Use Porter’s descriptors of instruction in math and science for

high school to catalogue what instruction occurs. Align the
descriptors with the state test specifications. Confirm that coverage
of tested topics improves achievement.

#2–2 Use the Survey of the Enacted Curriculum as a staff

development process to compare instruction with standards and
state assessments.

#2–3 Rank test results by standards through released test items.

#2–4 Provide teachers with opportunities to refine the scope and

sequence of courses (especially for science lecture and lab
activities), taking into account problematic areas of standards.

CHAPTER 3

#3–1 Coverage isn’t enough—gather data on student practice

opportunities in textbooks.

#3–2 Conduct textbook alignment studies keyed to test results.

#3–3 Preview textbook purchases by analyzing practice

opportunities for areas of weakness.
#3–4 Survey teachers to determine the time spent on textbook topics
before establishing district guidelines of time to be spent on topics.

CHAPTER 4

#4–1 Lobby the state to provide adequate information on standards

and assessments.

#4–2 Examine the alignment between the standards, the test

specifications, and the reports generated by the test.

#4–3 State professional organizations could replicate Webb’s study

using the WAT (Web Alignment Tool) and publish the results.

#4–4 School districts should require schools to use state testing data
to plan improvements.

#4–5 Set multiyear goals for district performance on state tests.

#4–6 Lobby the state to use Achieve’s Ten Criteria for Essential
Elements of a State’s Longitudinal Data System.

#4–7 Backload the curriculum: Align released test items with

curriculum and textbooks.

CHAPTER 5

#5–1 Implement a mastery learning model districtwide.

#5–2 Develop standard ways to periodically assess and reteach

students.
#5–3 Provide feedback to students on a regular basis while providing
iterative ways for students to demonstrate competence on learning
tasks.

CHAPTER 6

#6–1 Clarify benchmarks.

#6–2 Unburden the curriculum.

#6–3 Cut major topics.

#6–4 Trim technical vocabulary.

#6–5 Reduce wasteful repetition.

#6–6 Learn to analyze curriculum materials.

#6–7 Align assessment to curriculum.

#6–8 Relate instructional units to strand maps.

#6–9 Create strand maps for other subject areas.

CHAPTER 7

#7–1 Decide on fewer topics covered in more depth, particularly in

math.

#7–2 Develop districtwide tests, aligned to state assessments, to

gain data on students’ mastery of topics.

#7–3 Use test results to vary time and coverage of key topics.
CHAPTER 9

#9–1 Design, write, and implement a curriculum for the district that
meets the ten criteria for a useful and usable curriculum.
 List of Figures

CHAPTER 1

Figure 1.1 Alignment Possibilities

Figure 1.2 The Alignment Matrix

CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.1 The Alignment Matrix

Figure 2.2 Survey of the Enacted Curriculum
Figure 2.3 Alignment Analysis of State Assessments, Teacher
Reports, and NAEP Assessment
Figure 2.4 The Alignment Matrix—Focus on Instruction
Figure 2.5 Porter’s Descriptors for Math and Science Applied to
Ratio
Figure 2.6 Connecticut Standards for Number Properties
Figure 2.7 Sample Performance Item for the Connecticut State
Test
CHAPTER 3

Figure 3.1 Percentage of Tested Topics for Fourth-Grade

Mathematics Covered in Textbooks
Figure 3.2 United States: The Relationship of Textbook Coverage
to Standards, Instructional Time, and Achievement
Gain
Figure 3.3 Instructional Ratings of Middle School Mathematics
Textbooks
Figure 3.4 Quality Assessment of Middle School Science Texts
Figure 3.5 Project 2061 Instructional Analysis of Biology
Textbooks
Figure 3.6 The Alignment Matrix—Textbooks
Figure 3.7 Connecticut Mastery Test—Sample Grade 3 Items
Figure 3.8 Sample Sheet for Determining Amount of Practice for
Curriculum Topics
Figure 3.9 Aligning Content Strands From the State Standards to
Practice Items in the Textbook
Figure 3.10 Aligning Textbook Topics to Teachers’ Use of
Instructional Time

CHAPTER 4

Figure 4.1 The Alignment Matrix—State Assessments

Figure 4.2 Depth-of-Knowledge Categories
Figure 4.3 Summary of Alignment Analysis for State Standards
and State Tests
Figure 4.4 Vertical Alignment Between Grade Levels
Figure 4.5 NSES Inquiry Standards Segmented Into Component
Codes and Descriptions
Figure 4.6 NSES Science Inquiry Component Codes
Figure 4.7 Alignment of NAEP, TIMSS, and NSSRE Items in
Different Item Formats With Inquiry Standards
Figure 4.8 Classification of Science Items as Non-Inquiry or
Inquiry Items From NAEP 1996 and 2000
Figure 4.9 Classification of NAEP, TIMSS, and NSSRE Inquiry
Items Into Inquiry Ability or Component
Figure 4.10 Comparison of State Test Proficiency Cut Scores by
NWEA Percentile
Figure 4.11 NAEP Score Equivalents of States’ Proficiency
Standards for Reading, Grade 4, 2005
Figure 4.12 Excerpt of Connecticut Standards for Math K–4
Figure 4.13 Connecticut Mathematics Grade 4 Test Blueprint
Figure 4.14 Connecticut Mastery Test Grade 4 Mathematics
Content
Figure 4.15 Grade 4 Sample Items for the Connecticut Mastery
Test
Figure 4.16 Connecticut Mathematics Diagnostic Report for a
Sample Teacher
Figure 4.17 Strengths and Needs Work Sheet Based on State
Assessment Data
Figure 4.18 Strengths and Needs Analysis Leads to Staff
Development Planning Work Sheet
Figure 4.19 Work Sheet for Computing Annual Progress Needed
to Meet the Needs of NCLB
CHAPTER 5

Figure 5.1 Bloom’s Model of Instructional Quality

Figure 5.2 The Alignment Matrix—Mastery Learning
Figure 5.3 Wishnick’s Alignment Measurement Scale

CHAPTER 6

Figure 6.1 Organization of Science for All Americans and

Benchmarks for Science Literacy
Figure 6.2 Project 2061 Strand Map
Figure 6.3 The Alignment Matrix—Project 2061
Figure 6.4 Using Project 2061 Tools to Clarify a Benchmark
Figure 6.5 Benchmark Ideas Included in Traditional Science
Curriculum
Figure 6.6 Traditional Topics to Consider Excluding for Literacy
Core
Figure 6.7 Inferences Based on Assessments
Figure 6.8 Relating Instructional Units to Strand Maps
Figure 6.9 Sample Strand Configuration
Figure 6.10 Standard Strands Mapped Across Grade Levels
Figure 6.11 Strand Map of Earth’s Gravity Organized Across
Grade Levels
Figure 6.12 Chart Major Connections Between Noncontiguous
Strands

CHAPTER 7
Figure 7.1 Three Categories From the TIMSS Mathematics
Framework
Figure 7.2 Structural Model Relating Curriculum and
Achievement
Figure 7.3 The Alignment Matrix—The TIMSS

CHAPTER 8

Figure 8.1 The Alignment Matrix

CHAPTER 9

Figure 9.1 Results From Schools and Districts That Have

Developed and Implemented the Balanced Curriculum
Figure 9.2 Sample Significant Task for High School English
Figure 9.3 Alignment of the Significant Task to the Standards and
the Assessment Specifications
Figure 9.4 Alignment of Connecticut Test Specifications to
Significant Tasks
Figure 9.5 Report of Number of Significant Tasks for the Course
Aligned to Significant Tasks
Figure 9.6 Using Data Generated by Curriculum Implementation

CHAPTER 11

Figure 11.1 The Complete Alignment Matrix

 Preface

In this book I untangle the messy concept of curriculum alignment

and use the research as a platform for suggesting ideas a district
can use to improve their curriculum, instruction, and test scores.

RATIONALE

I wrote this book with the belief that research, if properly translated,
can be a powerful tool in the hands of school and district leaders.
Curriculum alignment hasn’t benefited from a look at its research
base and how it translates into actions districts can take. This book
will make an initial contribution.

THE BOOK’S PLAN

I will explain how the concept of alignment has been defined and
used:

in the relationship of alignment to instruction (Chapter 2);

in a mastery learning setting (Chapter 3);
for textbooks (Chapter 4);
in the relationship of standards to standardized tests (Chapter
5);
in the work of the Third International Math and Science Study
(Chapter 6);
 through the work of Project 2061 in science and mathematics
(Chapter 7).

Chapter 8 presents an example of a systematic curriculum

development approach that incorporates alignment, the Balanced
Curriculum. This process for developing and implementing a
curriculum uses alignment to strengthen district efforts to improve
achievement (Squires, 2005a).
Chapter 9 summarizes the results, showing how a systematic
and data-driven approach to curriculum and instruction can address
many of the concerns about alignment raised in this book.
The book is divided into three parts.

Part I—Alignment Research and Suggestions

Concerning Instruction, Textbooks, and Standardized
Tests

This section covers the major areas of concentration in the

alignment research:

a general overview (Chapter 1)

instruction (Chapter 2)
textbooks (Chapter 3)
standardized tests (Chapter 4)

Part II—Alignment Research and Suggestions

Concerning Mastery Learning, Project 2061, and the
Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS)

This section moves past the studies concerning just one aspect of
the alignment research covered in the book’s first part. Part II deals
with three examples of a more systematic approach, thus
demonstrating that this approach to alignment can also produce
achievement results:

in a mastery learning setting (Chapter 5)

in Project 2061 in science and mathematics (Chapter 6)
in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(Chapter 7)

Part III—The Aligned Curriculum

In Part III, I examine how curriculum is defined, offer ten criteria for
a useful and usable curriculum, and model how one curriculum
system (the Balanced Curriculum) meets the definition and the
criteria, producing improved achievement. A well designed
curriculum will produce achievement results.

Chapters 8 and 9 focus on how alignment can be used in a

curriculum design, focusing on the Balanced Curriculum design
(Squires, 2005a) as one way of incorporating alignment.
Chapter 10 summarizes the results of the Balanced Curriculum
as one model of alignment, showing improved achievement in
districts around the country.
Chapter 11 summarizes the thirty-one recommendations made
in this book based on the research and demonstrates how one
curriculum model, the Balanced Curriculum, meets those
recommendations.

CHAPTER STRUCTURE
In each chapter I review how researchers have defined, studied, and
showed the research-based results of alignment. This review is
followed by suggestions of how school districts can use the
alignment concept to improve curriculum and instruction.
 The focus is on districts because it is the district’s responsibility to
devise and define a curriculum for its schools. It is too time
consuming for schools to do individually.

MY EXPERIENCE

As a district curriculum leader, I have witnessed the power of

alignment to strengthen curriculum and drive increased student
achievement results (Squires, 2005a). Working with the Comer
School Development Program (SDP) at Yale, I have seen student
achievement improvements in schools and districts resulting from
the combination of the SDP process and an aligned curriculum. Now,
as a professor of Educational Leadership at Southern Connecticut
State University, I teach students studying to be principals and
superintendents by consistently reinforcing the importance of
curriculum alignment when they design curriculum structures as part
of their course work.
 Acknowledgments

A book’s author stands on many shoulders.

Many thanks are due the teachers and administrators from the
many districts who implemented the Balanced Curriculum process
and saw achievement gains. Their skill in developing the curriculum
and ensuring implementation shows that a curriculum that accounts
for alignment improves achievement.
To the many authors whose work is cited in this book, thanks for
your efforts in helping to develop a chorus of studies that show the
power of alignment to affect achievement.
To my wife, Maureen, and daughter, Allison, for their many hours
of work in reading and commenting on the manuscript. Your love has
seen me through this and many other projects.
To three dear friends who also critiqued early versions: Dr. Jim
McConnell, Dr. Eileen Howley, and Dr. David Champagne. Your care
and your comments inspired further work on my part.
To my editor, Debra Stollenwerk, whose ability to see the logic of
the big picture helped me to frame the final draft to fully bring out the
book’s themes. Your questions, observations, and comments helped
me see past my own preconceptions.

PUBLISHER’S ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Corwin Press gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the
following reviewers:
Rosemary Burnett
District Mentor Consultant
School District of La Crosse
La Crosse, WI
Sister Camille Anne Campbell, O.Carm.
President and Principal of Mount Carmel Academy, New Orleans, LA
Chair of Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Board of
Trustees
Chair Elect of Advanced Ed Board of Trustees

Margarete Couture
Principal
South Seneca Central School District
Interlaken, NY

Dr. Arthur Ellis

Director of Curriculum and Instruction
Peoria Public School District 150
Peoria, IL

Jill M. Gildea, EdD

Superintendent
Harrison Elementary School District #36
Wonder Lake, IL

Deborah E. Howard
Curriculum and Assessment Coordinator
Governor Baxter School for the Deaf
Maine Educational Center for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing
Falmouth, ME

T. C. Mattocks
Superintendent of Schools
Bellingham School District
Bellingham, MA
Judith A. Rogers, EdD
Professional Learning Specialist
Tucson Unified School District
Tucson, AZ

Leslie A. Standerfer, EdD

Principal
Estrella Foothills High School
Goodyear, AZ
 About the Author

David A. Squires is currently an associate professor working with

doctoral students and teachers who wish to be certified as principals
and superintendents in the Educational Leadership Program at
Southern Connecticut State University, specializing in curriculum,
school reform, and organizational development. Previous
employment includes the Comer School Development Program at
Yale University. In addition, he has worked as a central office
administrator for over a decade in Red Bank, New Jersey; a
research specialist at Research for Better Schools in Philadelphia; a
graduate research assistant in the Learning Research and
Development Center at the University of Pittsburgh; and a high
school English teacher in suburban Pittsburgh and inner-city
Cleveland. He currently heads a consulting firm, ABC Education
Consultants, LLC, which assists school districts to write, align, and
implement the Balanced Curriculum process.
 About the Balanced Curriculum Web Site

Free access to the Balanced Curriculum Web site can be obtained

by visiting the site and, under the log in, clicking on “Free sign up for
one course, click here.” Directions for using the Web site are given
with your free log in.
Professors can receive free access to the Web site for their
curriculum courses by emailing
david.squires@balancedcurriculum.com and requesting access.
Please include the name of your state and the specific standards
your students will be aligning to. A syllabus is also available by
clicking on “syllabus” from the first page. You can also get the
Educational Leadership 685 Curriculum Course description from
www.balancedcurriculum.com using login: SCSU Student, password:
1234.
Information is available on the site www.balancedcurriculumcom
about the Balanced Curriculum process, services, results, articles,
and staff.
To navigate the site, any text in blue can be clicked on to go
down to the next level.
By using each of the log ins below, you can view the following
sample curricula.

User Name: Demo

Password: Demo

This shows you a number of courses that have been developed by

school districts across the country.
 User Name: Yale
Password: 1234

This allows you to view student work from graduate students in the
Educational Leadership Program at Southern Connecticut State
University, where students developed a course with units, one unit of
significant tasks, alignments, and assessments.

User Name: Meriden

Teacher Password: 1234

This shows the math curriculum (other curriculum areas are

currently under development) for K–5 which produced 10–15%
improvement on the Connecticut state test.

User Name: Harvard

Password: 1234

This allows you to view Englewood Cliff, New Jersey, school

district’s curriculum where all courses have been placed on the
Balanced Curriculum Web site.
 Part I

Alignment and Instruction, Textbooks, and

Standardized Tests

After introducing the concept of alignment and the structure of the

research shown in the alignment matrix in Chapter 1, the book’s next
three chapters summarize major studies in the areas where the
majority of the research on alignment is found:

Instruction (Chapter 2)
Textbooks (Chapter 3)
Standardized tests (Chapter 4)
 1
Introduction to Curriculum Alignment

Aligning curriculum and instruction to standards and assessments

receives much attention from districts that are trying to improve test
scores to meet the mandates of No Child Left Behind legislation and
requiring ever higher performance on a state’s standardized tests.
Popular articles from around the world show intensive discussion
about the usefulness of alignment (Achieve, Inc., 2001; Ainsworth &
Viegut, 2006; Alexson & Kemnitz, 2003; Ananda, 2003; Anderson,
2002 & 2005; Billig et al., 2005; Clarke, Stow, Ruebling, & Kona,
2006; Cronin, 2004; Evans, 2002; Ewing, 2003; Hall, 2002; La
Marca, 2001; Lawson, Bordignon, & Nagy, 2002; Marca, Redfield, &
Winter, 2001; Maryland State Higher Education Commission, 2004;
McGehee & Griffith, 2001; Stern & Roseman, 2001; U.S. Department
of Education, 2005). Indeed, research on aligning curriculum with
standards and assessments shows dramatic results under some
circumstances (Bloom, 1976; Moss-Mitchell, 1998; Porter, Kirst,
Osthoff, Smithson, & Schneider, 1994; Price-Baugh, 1997; Schmidt
et al., 2001; Squires, 2005a; Squires 2005b; Wishnick, 1989). Many
of the studies show that an aligned curriculum can level the playing
field for poor and minority students and reduce the achievement gap.
Alignment, under some circumstances, produces dramatic results
after the first year of implementation, in some cases increasing
scores on state testing by over 50% (Squires, 2005a).
Despite the positive effects of alignment on student achievement,
little attention is given to alignment issues by many curriculum
models, including:

Understanding by Design by Wiggins and McTighe (2005)

The Parallel Curriculum by Tomlinson et al. (2002)
 The Concept-Based Curriculum in Stiring the Head, Heart, and
Soul by Erickson (2001)
Course Design by Posner and Rudnitsky (2006)
Curriculum Mapping by Jacobs (1997)

Each design has many strengths despite the lack of attention to

alignment. Because these popular curriculum designs don’t address
alignment, however, one powerful dimension of curriculum is lost.
The goal of this book is to refine practitioners’ knowledge of
alignment issues and to demonstrate what districts can do now to
improve their alignment process and student achievement based on
the research. The book concludes by demonstrating how curriculum
can be a systemic tool for addressing many alignment issues as well
as a tool for improving achievement.
This book will appeal to a variety of audiences. Central office
personnel in charge of curriculum, staff development, and testing will
appreciate the smorgasbord of practical approaches for alignment.
Superintendents will use this book as a way to assess their
strategies for improving test results and student outcomes. School
administrators will use the book to test their approach to alignment
against research-based models. Those who are studying curriculum,
staff development, assessment, or educational leadership will find
the research-based alignment approaches useful in expanding their
grab bag of strategies for improving student achievement. School
board members, anxious to understand how policy might be
constructed to insure continuous improvement in test scores—a
dilemma all board members face with the requirements of No Child
Left Behind—will appreciate the range of strategies described in the
book.
Understanding the concept of alignment is difficult because
researchers and school districts use the term alignment in many
different ways. This book seeks to untangle the messy concept of
alignment and use the research as a platform for suggesting ideas a
district can use to improve their curriculum, instruction, and test
scores.
WHAT IS ALIGNMENT?
Alignment is an agreement or a match between two categories. If
standards contain “number concepts” in math and the curriculum
contains “number concepts,” alignment between standards and
curriculum occurs. The categories match. In this example, the
alignment presupposes that the contents of “number concepts” are
the same for both the standards and the curriculum.
Standards can be aligned to curriculum. Standards are general;
curriculum is more specific. For example, in a writing standard is the
description, “Write on self-selected topics in a variety of literary
forms.” The curriculum contains a number of specific writing
opportunities for students to write on self-selected topics in a variety
of specific literary forms. Each writing opportunity so specified is
aligned to the standard, and the curriculum and the standards match,
or are in alignment, even though the standards are general and the
curriculum specific. Ensuring alignment means that students will
have the opportunity to learn the content of the standards.
The process of alignment becomes difficult when we examine the
number of documents that could be aligned and compared. Figure
1.1 has two columns that list the major areas that could be aligned or
compared. Arrows beginning in the first column show that national
standards from professional organizations can be aligned to the
categories in the second column. (All the possible arrows are not
shown in this example.) Alignment can be a daunting task because
there are so many possible alignments.

Figure 1.1 Alignment Possibilities

SOURCE: (Squires, 2005a)

We wish national standards would align with state standards and

state standards would align with local standards. We wish national
tests such as the NAEP, SAT, and ACT would align with commercial
standardized tests, state assessments, district, and teacher
assessments. We wish that textbooks, district curriculum, and
teacher lesson plans would align with teacher instruction. What we
wish and what we know are different.
ALIGNMENT PROBLEMS: TOO MANY STANDARDS, TOO
LITTLE TIME
What we know is that any category in Figure 1.1 listed above District
Curriculum has been created in relative isolation from all the others.
Commercial tests may not reflect many state standards. State
assessments may not be aligned to textbooks. The standards of
national professional associations may have little relationship to the
NAEP, SAT, or ACT. As we work in a standards-based world, we find
the tools we work with are not aligned.
Consider the many layers of standards: state standards drive
state assessment specifications, national standards inform state
standards, and districts may have developed ways of working on
their own—their own “power” standards (Reeves, 2006). The
voluminous nature of state standards guarantees that no one can
keep all the standards in his or her head at once, especially if one is
in a self-contained elementary classroom responsible for math,
English/language arts, social studies, and science. There are not
enough hours in a day to ensure that students will individually
perform on all those standards. Do we have a way of selecting the
most important?
Yes! A district’s curriculum defines a plan for what is most
important for students to know and be able to do. A local district can
control their curriculum assessments, and thus can direct teacher
lesson plans, instruction, and assessments. The district curriculum is
the meeting place for all those voices of state and national entities,
and district teachers can decide what’s best for their students based
on their professional judgment and expertise, the standards, the
textbooks, and the tests. Once the district curriculum is developed,
alignment to the many competing standards and assessments with
which districts must cope can take place. Then it is possible to see if
there is over- or under-alignment between the curriculum, the
textbooks, state and national standards and assessments, and other
areas such as college entrance tests like the ACT or SAT. (Many of
you are shuddering right now because you know your district’s
curriculum, in its current form, is not up to such a task. The
curriculum model shown in the last chapter is one way to address
this issue.)
There is an advantage to the many voices from standards and
local practice telling us what is important for students to know and
do, but it is personnel at the district level who must decide what
should be taught in the district. These many voices of standards and
assessments can help inform decisions about what is most important
to teach. A district curriculum provides a way to make decisions
locally about what is most important to teach and test. Then the
district can determine whether the curriculum is strong by aligning
the curriculum to external standards and assessments and seeing
where the gaps are or what is overemphasized. If your curriculum
can’t do this easily, your district is missing an important lever to
improve student achievement.
Here’s a vision of what can happen when alignment is in place.
Webb (1997) indicates that teachers will give more importance to
documents if alignment exists because the documents will be more
useful in teaching students. Alignment can improve the effectiveness
and efficiency of the school system by providing feedback on
standards that need more work, so money and time can be allocated
based on need. Improving scores on state assessments reinforce
what is taught and learned. In an aligned system, student progress is
more easily mapped through large-scale assessments and district-
or teacher-made assessments that parallel the large-scale
assessments. Professional development, textbook adoption, and
budgeting processes can be increasingly driven by student results.
Results of the research on alignment summarized in this book show
that student performance is better when alignment is in place.
Districts that naively tred into alignment territory will immediately
hit a quagmire of competing standards and assessments. This book
provides a way to know what the research says about alignment, so
the district can develop strategies to align their curriculum and thus
improve student achievement. To assist in sorting out the research,
let’s use the alignment matrix.
THE ALIGNMENT MATRIX
English’s three components of curriculum—the written, the taught,
the tested (English, 1992)—provide a first cut in examining the
problem of alignment. The written curriculum is usually the
curriculum document produced by the school district. Textbooks also
are another form of written curriculum. Another form of written
curriculum is the standards. Standards, curriculum, and textbooks
are three areas addressed in the written section of the curriculum
matrix.
The taught curriculum comes from enacting the written
curriculum. The taught curriculum on the curriculum matrix consists
of two categories: lesson plans which teachers use to plan what they
teach and actual classroom instruction.
The tested curriculum is the relatively small part of the curriculum
that ends up on a test. The tested curriculum is the content that is
tested within the school district in curriculum embedded tests, or the
content of state or other standardized tests. The curriculum matrix
divides the tested curriculum into state and standardized tests (the
most general), curriculum embedded tests, and student
assignments. (Student assignments can be considered test-like as
they are used by teachers as indicators that students have
understood the material.)
Any of these categories can be aligned to any of the other
categories, with complete alignment shown in Figure 1.2 (Squires,
2005a). The research covers most of these alignment possibilities
(see Chapter 9 for a summary of the alignment research placed on
the alignment matrix).
We will use the alignment matrix to organize our literature review
and summarize the various ways that researchers have studied
curriculum alignment. For each literature review section, the
alignment categories are connected on the alignment matrix for the
research cited.
The next chapter discusses the alignment research around
instruction and suggests a few ways districts might use that
information to improve alignment.
Figure 1.2 The Alignment Matrix
 2
Alignment and Instruction

This chapter reviews the research on aligning curriculum to

instruction. What happens in the classroom influences all other
aspects of alignment; so we begin looking at the alignment research
that focuses on instruction. In the chapter’s first section, Porter’s
work examines a way to categorize the content of science in high
school science classes, compares this with other classes, and shows
the effect of content coverage on achievement gains. In the second
section, these ideas are extended to large school districts to see if
similar tools can be applied to improve the alignment of instruction,
standards, and state tests. In the third section of the chapter, we
review three studies that show how alignment considerations have
been integrated into school improvement and curriculum
development processes, with some improvements in achievement
noted. At the end of the chapter, we show how school districts can
use similar processes to improve alignment of instruction.

THE REFORM UP CLOSE STUDY AND ALIGNMENT’S

DIMENSIONS

Reform Up Close Study—Purpose and Approach

Porter and colleagues, in the Reform Up Close project (1993,

1994), studied high schools (two each in large urban districts and
one in a smaller suburban/rural district) in six states that were
actively implementing change in curriculum and instruction in math
and science, such as increased course requirements and more
emphasis on problem solving. The high schools, as part of
increasing state requirements, generally required more students to
take higher-level courses. For example, some of the high schools
eliminated general math and required all students to take Algebra I.
The study reported on whether the enacted (taught) curriculum in
math and science courses were watered down as a result of
increased enrollments. This required an “alignment” of course
content mapped from the “old” to the “new” courses to determine if
there was a difference between the old course and the new course.
To describe the enacted (taught) curriculum across schools, they
employed a set of descriptors for math and science topics covered in
each classroom to focus the alignment effort.

In the Reform Up Close study, we employed a detailed and

conceptually rich set of descriptors of high school
mathematics and science that were organized into three
dimensions: topic coverage, cognitive demand, and mode of
presentation. Each dimension consisted of a set number of
discrete descriptors. Topic coverage consisted of 94 distinct
categories for mathematics (for example, ratio, volume,
expressions, and relations between operations). Cognitive
demand included nine descriptors: memorize, understand
concepts, collect data, order/compare/estimate, perform
procedures, solve routine problems, interpret data, solve
novel problems, and build/revise proofs. There were seven
descriptors for modes of presentation: exposition, pictorial
models, concrete models, equations/formulas, graphical,
laboratory work, and fieldwork. A content topic was defined as
the intersection of topic coverage, cognitive demand, and
mode of presentation, so the language permitted 94 × 9 × 7 or
5,922 possible combinations for describing content. Each
lesson could be described using up to five unique three-
dimensional topics, yielding an extremely rich yet systematic
language for describing instructional content. This language
worked well for daily teacher logs and for observation
protocols (Porter & Smithson, 2001, p. 5).
 Porter used the same three dimensions in describing daily
teacher logs (lesson plans on the alignment matrix), teacher survey
instruments of what teachers said they taught (instruction on the
alignment matrix), and the topic coverage dimension for aligning
lessons to emerging national standards (standards on the alignment
matrix). This method allows for comparison or alignment between
instruction, teacher plans, and standards.

Findings

In general, the daily teacher logs, the teacher questionnaire, and

the observation protocols aligned in that all descriptions were
consistent with each other; they all described, in different ways, the
classroom instruction. (The researchers wouldn’t want the teacher
observation protocols to differ from what the teachers recorded in
their daily logs.) Use of the chart defining the intersection of topic
coverage, cognitive demand, and mode of presentation described
above provided a quick way to summarize and describe the content
of lessons. Porter’s approach of constructing a chart of content
topics allowed comparison across states with different state
standards for describing math and science. Having a universal way
to describe instruction provides common data points for research,
linking instruction to achievement outcomes and internal district
evaluation activities. (A similar approach was taken in the Third
International Mathematics and Science Study, which we will review
in Chapter 7.)
Porter found that “content of mathematics and science courses
appeared not to have been compromised by increased enrollments
(in more difficult courses); and the enacted curriculum in high school
mathematics and science was not at all in alignment with the
curriculum reform toward higher-order thinking and problem-solving
for all students” (Porter et al., 1994, p.8). Additionally, Porter noted

We were able to demonstrate a strong, positive, and

significant correlation (.49) between the content of instruction
 and student achievement gains. When we controlled for prior
achievement, students’ poverty level, and content of
instruction (using an HLM [Hierarchical Linear Modeling]
approach in our analysis), practically all variation in student
learning gains among types of first-year high school
mathematics courses was explained (Porter et al., 1994, p. 4).

The power of alignment is demonstrated, this time showing that

aligned instruction is linked to increased student outcomes
(Gamoran, Porter, Smithson & White, 1997). This is shown on the
alignment matrix (Figure 2.1) shown next.
At the bottom of the alignment matrix, the three studies listed in
this section are labeled with an A. The A indicates that each study
looked at the alignment of lesson plans with student data. Other
alignment relationships were also investigated in these three studies:
the alignment between instruction and lesson plans, the alignment
between curriculum and instruction, and the alignment of instruction
to standards. Each is indicated by an A with a line connecting the
alignment categories.

Figure 2.1 The Alignment Matrix

 Next we will explain other studies by Blank (2004) and Blank,
Porter, and Smithson (2001), showing relationships between other
alignment categories related to instruction indicated by the letter B in
Figure 2.1. At the book’s end, all the studies will be shown on one
alignment matrix so the reader will be able to visualize the total
scope of the research. (See Chapter 10.)

INSTRUCTIONAL ALIGNMENT AND PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT
In “New Tools for Analyzing Teaching, Curriculum and Standards in
Mathematics and Science,” Blank, Porter, and Smithson (2001)
developed tools for data reporting on a number of alignment
categories summarized before on the alignment matrix. Then they
tried to get large school districts to apply their findings through
professional development.

Blank et al.: Refining Data Gathering and Procedures for

Alignment—Purpose and Approach
 Blank et al. (2001) methodology builds on the findings of Porter’s
studies. Rather than record the cognitive demand and mode of
presentation for each lesson on a three-dimensional matrix, teachers
filled out a onetime survey highlighting content, cognitive demand,
and an estimate of how long they spent on a particular topic for an
entire year, recorded in a survey of the enacted curriculum shown in
Figure 2.2.
The first column of the survey asks teachers to indicate the
amount of time on topic. The second column asks teachers to
indicate the subtopics for the content covered, such as Number
Sense/Properties. In the other columns teachers indicate time use
categories: 0 = no emphasis, 1 = slight emphasis [accounts for less
than 25% of the time], 2 = moderate emphasis [accounts for 25–33%
of the time], 3 = sustained emphasis [accounts for more than 33% of
the time] (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2000; Porter &
Smithson, 2001). The categories of cognitive demand have also
been refined over time (Porter & Smithson, 2001). The survey shown
in the second chart in Figure 2.2 collects data on the amount of time
spent on various instructional activities. Porter and Smithson showed
that the abbreviated data collection method correlated well with the
daily instructional surveys used in Reform Up Close work. Data from
student questionnaires allowed a comparison between student and
teacher questionnaires with adequate correlations indicating
reliability. The survey of the enacted curriculum reduces the data
collection demands of alignment to once per year, from recording
alignment for every lesson as in the Reform Up Close effort.

Figure 2.2 Survey of the Enacted Curriculum

 The teacher questionnaires and the analysis of state standards
and state tests across eleven states allowed rich comparisons with
the authors providing suggestions about how the data might be used
by states, districts, and schools, such as:

to examine main differences in practices among schools and

teachers
to compare current instruction to standards
to analyze subject content taught in a topic area
to compare schools within and across districts
 to align between instruction and assessment

Below is a sample of the reports showing data from the

questionnaires.

Findings

Figure 2.3 shows an alignment analysis of Grade 8 NAEP

(National Assessment of Educational Progress) assessment with a
state assessment and with a state teachers’ report summarizing the
average of fourteen teachers’ questionnaire results showing their
curriculum coverage. The shaded topographical representation
indicates the time spent on the intersection of content (Nature of
Science, Measurement and Calculation in Science, etc.) with
cognitive demand (memorize, understand concepts, etc.). For
example, the NAEP chart indicates that the test topic for Life Science
requires students to answer questions involving memorization on
approximately 9+% of the test’s content. On the other hand, teachers
from state B report spending 3–4.9% of their time on Life Science
memorization.

Figure 2.3 Alignment Analysis of State Assessments, Teacher

Reports, and NAEP Assessment
SOURCE: Porter, A. C., & Smithson J. L. (2001). Defining, developing, and using curriculum
indicators (CPRE Research Report Series RR-048). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy
Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.

Teachers would need to figure out whether their instruction on Life

Science memorization provided enough time to produce adequate
scores on the NAEP in items that involved Life Science
memorization. Further discussion can be obtained in Porter and
Smithson’s paper entitled “Alignment of assessments, standards,
and instruction using curriculum indicator data” (2002). This report
provides specific documentation on ways data from teacher surveys
of alignment can be used to change policy and school and district
practices.

Blank: Applying Alignment Strategies in Urban Settings

—Purpose and Approach

Can and will the data be used by teachers and administrators in

real-world settings? Here the authors are interested in the tool’s use
in staff development. Could the tool be used by teachers to inform
their decisions about curriculum and instruction? Here alignment is
moving away from a research tool and evolving into a staff
development tool.
To begin to answer this question, the Council of Chief State
School Officers was awarded a three-year grant from the National
Science Foundation (NSF) in 2000 to conduct an experimental
design study to determine the effectiveness of a new model for
professional development, which aimed toward improving the quality
of instruction in math and science in five urban districts, with a total
of forty middle schools comprising the pool for random selection of
the groups. A professional development model (Council of Chief
State School Officers, 2002) was synthesized using research on staff
development.
Four elements were part of the design:

active learning opportunities for teachers, responsive to how

teachers learn and take leadership roles
extended duration sustained over time
focus on content, high standards, and how students learn the
content
collective participation of groups of teachers from the same
school or department (Blank, 2004, p. 6)

“To provide effective formative evaluation designed to improve

quality of curriculum and instruction requires reliable, comparable
data that allows educators to determine the degree of consistency in
the curriculum being taught, and then to identify the source of
variation in the enacted curriculum, the subject content, and
classroom practices” (Blank, 2002; Porter, 2002) [quoted from Blank,
2004, p. 6]. The school teams had three goals:

learn to use rich, in-depth data to inform decisions about

curriculum, practice, assessment, organization, and materials
gain skills in collecting, analyzing, and displaying data; working
collaboratively; and organizing data-driven dialogue
learn how to set measurable student learning goals; develop
data-driven, local improvement plans; and sustain processes

Teachers in the control schools received inservice training on how

to use the data on the enacted curriculum.

Steps in the Assistance Model Process

Year 1

Orientation of district and school leaders: teachers complete

baseline data
Introductory Professional Development Workshop 1 for leader
teams (two days): develop data skills and begin data inquiry
Technical assistance in schools to introduce model to teachers

Year 2

Professional Development Workshop 2 (one day): use of

content data and instructional practices data
Technical assistance in schools
Professional Development Workshop 3 (one day): analyzing
student work and comparing instructional strategies
 Technical assistance in schools
Refocus efforts within schools

Year 3

Continue school teamwork

Complete follow-up surveys with teachers

SOURCE: (Blank, 2004, p. 11)

In three districts the study’s authors encountered problems at the

central office level getting schools identified and maintaining a
commitment to the study’s goals and processes. Change in district
leadership with consequent change in priorities was also a problem.
Teacher mobility was a problem. “Of the 660 math and science
teachers (treatment and control) in study schools in year 1, only 49
% were in the same school and subject assignment in year 3”
(Blank, 2004, p. 72). And, “Only one-fourth of the teachers in the
study who completed the baseline teacher survey in year 1 also
completed the follow-up teacher survey in year 3” (Blank, 2004, p.
56). Therefore, conclusions reached from the study contain only a
small set of teachers who were in the same assignment, participated
in the staff development, and filled out the pre-post surveys.

Findings

For those with complete data, there were two findings. First, the
data on enacted curriculum (DEC) model did improve quality of
instruction, as measured by increasing alignment with state
standards, when comparing instruction in treatment schools with
control schools; however, the effects are contingent on the level and
effectiveness of implementation within the treatment schools. This
means that schools may have paid attention to alignment, but they
were only effective if the decisions about alignment were
implemented in classroom instruction.
Second, schools with a high level of participation in DEC
activities showed greater increases in alignment of instructional
content with state standards than did other schools (Blank, 2004, p.
56). A description of current resources, materials, and processes
available for local districts and state departments can be found in the
Council of Chief State School Officers’ Surveys of Enacted
Curriculum (2005).
The works of Porter and Smithson and Blank show the wonderful
possibilities in aligning curriculum with valid and reliable instruments
and also show the difficulty of getting the instruments used in the
real world to help teachers and administrators make a difference in
instruction for children. Although this work could be used to describe
curriculum, just as the Surveys of the Enacted Curriculum can show
the alignment with state standards and assessments, the enacted
curriculum focuses on instruction and individual teachers’ reporting
of their instructional emphasis. Further, the enacted curriculum
assumes (perhaps rightly so) that districts don’t have a way of
controlling what teachers teach and test, such as a district
curriculum. The enacted curriculum model does place emphasis on
the “intended curriculum,” but the intended curriculum is quickly
equated to state standards.
The authors of the enacted curriculum have missed an
intervening variable in their model—the district curriculum. Perhaps
this is because many districts have never seen a district curriculum
that makes a difference in student achievement or is powerful
enough to actually provide direction to district teachers on what is
most important to teach and test. Squires (2005a) has developed a
Web-based curriculum development process that aligns the
curriculum to state standards and state and nationally normed
assessments. It provides standardized ways to assess the
curriculum, so data is generated for continuing improvement of the
curriculum and the curriculum completion can be managed and
administrated electronically. We address this curriculum model in
more detail in Chapters 8 and 9 of this book.
THREE SMALLER STUDIES OF INSTRUCTIONAL
ALIGNMENT

In this section we review three studies that show how alignment

considerations have been integrated into school improvement and
curriculum development processes. Although limited in scope, the
next three studies show that the concept of alignment influences
thinking on how to improve in the instructional domain. McGehee
and Griffith (2001) report on a staff development process for faculties
to examine and understand the alignment between state tests and
instruction for students. DiBiase, Warren, and Wagner (2002)
demonstrate the process of alignment of instruction to standards and
assessment, resulting in better student achievement. These studies
are placed on the alignment matrix in Figure 2.4.

Understanding the Alignment Between State Tests and

Instruction—Purpose and Approach

McGehee and Griffith (2001) developed a process that can be

used with school or district staff to assist them in understanding the
content of the state and/or standardized tests and their implications
for instruction. The activity involves released items from state or
standardized tests.

The activity involves printing each released item, including the

open-response items, in large print on color-coded cards. The
colors indicate one of the five content strands (for the state
standards of Arkansas). K–4 teachers and 5–8 teachers are
divided into two groups for each benchmarking level. Each
group is given a set of cards and the ranking of the 45 test
items determined by the percentage correct for that school or
district. One group is asked to sort the cards from lowest
percentage item to highest percentage
Figure 2.4 The Alignment Matrix—Focus on Instruction

item and to divide this sort into quartiles (the highest 12, the
next best 11, the next 11, the lowest 11). The other
benchmarking level group is asked to sort the cards by
strands and within each strand, then, sort the cards from best
to worse. The whole group assembles around each sort
starting with the quartile sort for the fourth grade benchmark
exam and ending with the strand sort for the eighth grade
benchmark. (McGehee & Griffith, 2001, p. 141)

Teacher groups then discuss the implications these sorts have for
instruction. The authors reported that groups discussed computation,
classroom materials like work sheets versus hands-on problem
solving, and the roles of textbooks in the curriculum. This leads to a
discussion and consensus on a scope and sequence for curriculum
and instruction.

Findings
 The authors reported results showing that a small northeastern
Arkansas district increased each of its Stanford Achievement Tests:
nine percentile points for fourth grade and at least 10 points for
eighth grade. Another district in western Arkansas advanced to 72 %
of their students gaining proficiency on state tests compared with 37
% proficient as a statewide average. Further research in other
districts will be forthcoming. Such results indicate that if teachers
have the information—and if they can apply the information to
instruction—then it is possible to improve student achievement.

Aligning Laboratory Instruction With Lectures—Purpose

and Approach

DiBiase, Warren, and Wagner (2002) aligned the instruction in a

chemistry lecture at the college level, meeting three times a week,
with the instruction of a chemistry laboratory course meeting once a
week. The goal of this project was to develop a laboratory curriculum
and instruction that aligned intimately with the lecture and also used
some of the principles of the National Science Education Standards
(curriculum-standards alignment). Using content analysis
procedures, the authors found that ten of the fourteen labs were not
linked in scheduling to the topics discussed in the lecture. They
adopted an instructional model that consisted of pre-assessment,
exploration, concept development, concept application, and
assessment to reinforce the inquiry-based nature of the curriculum.
Students at the beginning of the course were randomly assigned to
experimental and control groups; the experimental group was given
instruction that aligned the lab with the lectures, the control group
was given the former sequence of instruction. At the end of the
course all students took the same exam. Data was gathered about
students’ background through a pre-semester assessment delving
into previous science and mathematics courses taken and students’
SAT scores. They also collected opinion surveys administered
halfway through the semester. Randomly selected students were
interviewed to ascertain the effectiveness of course design on
student achievement. All the laboratory instructors also were
interviewed.

Findings

There were no statistically significant differences between the

experimental and control groups before the instruction commenced,
based on pre-semester assessment delving into previous science
and mathematics courses and SAT scores. There was a significant
increase in the final test scores for the course in the experimental
sections. Based on the lab surveys presented at mid-semester,
students in the experimental group believed that there was a tight
connection between the lecture and the lab experiments that helped
them understand the lecture: the students understood (rather than
just memorized) the concepts and calculations, and the experiments
helped them to visualize the concepts and processes from the
lecture. From the students interviewed, most students in the control
group noted the deficiencies in the curriculum, while most in the
experimental group commented positively about their experiences.
Taking the studies in this section, as a whole, we see that
beginning with instructional concerns doesn’t preclude a necessity to
align instruction to a scope and sequence of a course, as in the
DiBiase, Warner, and Wagner (2002) study. Many staff development
alternatives can help focus teachers on standards and assessments,
as was shown with the McGehee and Griffith (2001) study.

WHAT DISTRICTS CAN DO

#2–1

Use Porter’s descriptors of instruction in math and science

for high school to catalogue what instruction occurs. Align the
descriptors with the state test specifications. Confirm that
coverage of tested topics improves achievement.
For example, if all teachers were doing a lesson on ratio, they
could then fill in the matrix in Figure 2.5 indicating the appropriate
categories of cognitive demand and modes of presentation.

Figure 2.5 Porter’s Descriptors for Math and Science Applied to

Ratio
 Teachers would make an X in the matrix showing how concept of
ratio was taught. Then they would compare how they taught ratio
with how ratio was presented in the state standards and how the
item was assessed by the state assessment.
Samples of the state standards and state assessment from
Connecticut are shown in Figures 2.6 and 2.7, respectively.

Pluses
Porter’s descriptors have proven to be valid and reliable and
useful in comparisons of what has been presented in
classrooms.
Examining coverage of topics has been shown to affect
achievement in math and science.

Figure 2.6 Connecticut Standards for Number Properties

SOURCE: Connecticut Mastery Test Third Generation Mathematics Handbook, Part 1,

Connecticut State Department of Education, 1999.

Figure 2.7 Sample Performance Item for the Connecticut State

Test
SOURCE: Connecticut Mastery Test Third Generation Mathematics Handbook, Part 1,
Connecticut State Department of Education, 1999.

Other Considerations

Because there are 94 topic areas for mathematics in Porter’s

matrix, 94 pages would need to be filled out.

Teachers need time to become familiar with the coding system and
to fill out the necessary forms on a daily basis. (In the next section of
this chapter, Porter shows a valid and reliable way to gather
information on a yearly basis rather than a daily basis.)

#2–2

Use the Survey of the Enacted Curriculum as a staff

development process to compare instruction with standards
and state assessments.
The Survey of the Enacted Curriculum provides a way to have
databased decision making on curricular issues founded upon a
research-based, valid, and reliable instrument. Numerous
comparisons are possible: teacher to teacher, school to school,
teacher, school, or district to state assessment results and/or state
standards.

Pluses
 This valid and reliable instrument provides the data-based
decisions that can be aggregated by teacher, school, and district
to provide many different comparisons between the taught and
tested curriculum and the written curriculum encompassed in
the state standards.

Other Considerations

The model does not assume a written curriculum, but assumes

that the written curriculum is the state standards. Instruction
among individual teachers and schools can be compared, but
there is no vehicle for comparing instruction with a district
curriculum. This model assumes that the analysis of an
individual teacher’s ways of instruction will be powerful enough
to distinguish a one best model of a course’s design. Given the
problems that districts had in using the results, including high
rates of teacher turnover and lack of central office commitment,
it may be unrealistic that a one best way can bubble up through
the data in most districts.

#2–3

Rank test results by standards through released test items.

Districts can mimic the processes described by McGehee and
Griffith (2001), coding the released test items by standards, then
having a school’s faculty sort them and discuss the implications for
instruction.

Pluses

Once the coding is accomplished, this method provides a

sophisticated look at the results.
Faculty discussions have been shown to result in gains on
standardized tests.
 Other Considerations

The conversations are disconnected from a written curriculum.

(Indeed, in the article no written district curriculum was
mentioned.) But then we are examining alignment research
around instruction.
If a curriculum was present, and multiple schools used the
curriculum, a district would need to develop a way to synthesize
the recommendation of each school’s faculties.

#2–4

Provide teachers with opportunities to refine the scope and

sequence of courses (especially for science lecture and lab
activities), taking into account problematic areas of standards.
The DiBiase, Warren, and Wagner (2002) study points out that
elaborate alignment strategies may not be necessary in order to
affect course performance; rather, careful work on sequencing and
coordinating topics around science themes, and appropriately
organizing instruction, can pay dividends in student achievement.

Pluses

Attending to instructional design to improve the alignment

between course modules and standards pays dividends in
student achievement.

Other Considerations

Institutionalize the work, by writing it down and having others

use it, in order to capture the gains for future students.
 3
Alignment and Textbooks

This chapter focuses on alignment of textbooks to the curriculum

categories on the alignment matrix. Readers will know what the
research says about textbook alignment and what research-based
strategies can be used for improving the use textbooks.
In many districts, textbooks primarily guide instruction. The
district presents teachers with textbooks and expects them to teach
the textbook’s content. The textbooks in this case are fulfilling the
function of curriculum, providing a structure so teachers can make
decisions about what is most important to teach. Teachers use the
textbook as one lens through which to make teaching decisions. In
many districts, even though textbooks are provided, there is not a
structured way for deciding how the textbooks are to be used. Do I
start at the beginning and teach every page? Do I skip around and
only teach what I feel is important? Do I meet with others and decide
as a group? The superintendent may feel that textbooks structure
what is taught and therefore providing a textbook for teachers and
students is important. The actual use of textbooks across a district,
however, may be more problematic.
Examining the alignment between textbooks, standards, tests,
and instruction is important so we can understand if the textbook is
supporting the appropriate teaching and learning spelled out by state
standards and state assessments. Most textbooks claim to be
aligned to state standards and assessments. The little research that
has been done (reported later in this chapter) calls this claim into
question.
Other emerging trends will also affect the use of textbooks. As
more resources become available on the Internet, the role of the
textbook will likely decline. The money spent on textbooks
(sometimes $80 to $150 each) may be put to better use for other
things (like curriculum development), especially as more resources
become available and known on the World Wide Web. The use of
textbooks is in a time of transition.
Next, we examine research on textbooks and alignment from the
1980s and 1990s. Some of the first studies on textbook alignment
took place in the 1980s and early 1990s and examined the alignment
between textbooks and standardized tests. Many studies were part
of a large interest by academia during this time on textbooks and
their impact on the general nature of education. We will cover these
studies first in a section called Textbook to Test Alignment. From the
mid-1990s to 2000 very few studies were done on textbook
alignment until a group from the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (AAAS) launched Project 2061. They
developed a set of national science standards and examined math
and science textbooks used in secondary schools and their
alignment to standards. The work of AAAS is covered in the second
section of this chapter. The third section, called Modifying the Use of
Textbooks to Improve Alignment, describes two studies in which two
districts successfully aligned their textbook material to standardized
tests. Presented at the end of the chapter are some ideas for school
districts to consider for improving the alignment of their textbooks to
standardized tests.

TEXTBOOK TO TEST ALIGNMENT

Freeman et al. (1983) examined the alignment between math
textbooks and the standardized tests used during this period.
Howson’s (1995) work on textbooks in the Third International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) provides an in-depth study
of America’s use of textbooks compared with other nations.

Textbooks to Test Alignment—Purpose and Approach

 Freeman et al. (1983) examined the alignment of content between
mathematics textbooks and standardized tests. Freeman and
colleagues summarized the standardized test topics using the test
specifications of standardized tests. They next delineated coverage
of those topics in textbooks. If the textbook covered the tested topic
with twenty or more problems in the text, they coded the topic as
covered.

Findings

The table in Figure 3.1 summarizes their findings.

Figure 3.1 Percentage of Tested Topics for Fourth-Grade

Mathematics

Covered in Textbooks SOURCE: Adapted from Freeman, Kuhs, Porter, Floden, Schmidt,
and Schwille (1983). Used with permission.
NOTE: Percentages are based on topics covered by at least 20 problems in a book.

The tests with the number of topics on the tests are listed in the
first column on the left. The textbooks are listed across the top of the
chart. The numbers in the boxes represent the percentage of topics
on the standardized tests that are covered with at least twenty
problems in the book. So, for example, the Addison-Wesley math
textbook covers 32% of the thirty-eight topics on the MAT
assessment, or approximately one-third of the topics (about twelve
topics of thirty-eight). This finding means that one-third of the topics
on the standardized test are covered by twenty or more problems in
the textbook. Further, twenty-six topics are not covered by the
requisite twenty problems. If two-thirds of the tested topics lack
minimal coverage in the textbook, are students likely to receive
instruction aligned with the standardized test?
Further examination of the chart shows that the best alignment is
between the Holt math textbook and the MAT test at 50% of the test
items covered by 20 or more items in the textbook. We can conclude
that topic alignment is a problem on standardized tests when
compared with textbooks. The next study provides more information
on topic coverage in textbooks.

International Research on Textbooks—Purpose and

Approach

Howson (1995), as part of the Third International Mathematics and

Science Study (TIMSS), studied one representative textbook used in
each of the forty countries participating in the TIMSS research. To
conduct the study, Howson used a standardized list of topics for
mathematics and science constructed for TIMMS and aligned this list
of topics to the topics in the science textbooks. He also studied how
the textbooks suggested that the topics be taught in classes. This
expands the concept of alignment from just matching content to
completing an inventory of how the topics are taught.

Findings

One of the problems is that the textbooks studied fostered a

limited range of learning strategies: mainly learning by
listening and by practicing a restricted range of techniques in
particular ‘closed’ situations. Learning by reading, by
discussion and argument, and in an attempt to acquire the
 knowledge to solve a problem of one’s own choosing are
largely ignored. … The emphasis is so frequently on problem-
solving where the ‘problem’ is all too often a routine example
(Howson, 1995, p. 41).

Howson (1995) also found that

there is little explanation of why a topic is being studied (p. 41);

disconnected topics are tenuously linked and motivated (p. 45);
there are few hints on how to differentiate the text for use with a
range of students (pp. 46–47);
U.S. texts repeat much work from grade to grade (p. 51).

Howson went on to characterize U.S. textbooks:

The problem of the U.S. text is readily identified. … Those

coding the text for the main TIMSS study found that it
contained over three hundred units [a unit is an idea or
concept]—each requiring one to three periods of class time!
There is material here for three grades’ work. Some is review
of material covered in previous years, much is new; some
reflects all that is novel in the NCTM [National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics] Standards (1989), some appears
very traditional. Teachers are left, with the aid of a voluminous
teachers’ guide, to devise a one-year course appropriate for
students of very differing abilities and achievements …
problems of selection of material are great (although advice is
to be found in the accompanying guide). … The result is that
although a study of the Japanese books provides a
reasonable idea of what will be taught in their classrooms, just
about anything might happen in a U.S. classroom using this
particular series of texts. For the U.S. text, although not
advertising this fact, is not a course, but rather a resource.
(pp. 28–29)
 And, of course, just about anything does happen, especially
when there is little guidance. U.S. textbooks, at least the ones in this
study, covered more topics than could be reasonably taught in one
year. (Other research by AAAS, cited later in this chapter, suggests
that this generalization holds across a variety of math and science
textbooks.) This demonstrates that using the alignment of textbooks
in math and science as a guide for instruction is tenuous. This also
illustrates how tenuous the alignment between textbooks and
standards is when Howson proclaims that “some reflects all that is
novel in the NCTM [National Council of Teachers of Mathematics]
Standards (1989), some appears very traditional.”

The Dominant Role of Textbooks—Purpose and

Approach

Other research completed as part of TIMMS suggests that

textbooks play a dominant role in instruction, content, and student
achievement. We will further explore the details of how this part of
the study was designed in Chapter 7.

Findings

The model in this research study shows … the strong role that
textbooks played (both directly and in learning mathematics (and
science) in eighth grade in the United States). (Schmidt et al., 2001,
pp. 282–283)
Figure 3.2 shows that the amount of textbook coverage for a
topic in math and science was related to the instructional time
teachers spent on the topic and the achievement related to the topic.
This shows that textbooks provide teachers with important clues in
planning and delivering their instruction. Although the majority of the
research reported here is critical of textbooks and their alignment to
standards and assessments, it is important to realize that teachers
across the world use textbooks as one indicator of what is valuable
to cover.

We believe that we found powerful evidence that textbooks

exert a strong influence on what teachers teach … Textbook
coverage is important both for what topics are taught and for
the levels of performances and accomplishments expected of
students … It is perilous to ignore the ways in which they at
least partially shape what is taught (Schmidt et al., 2001, p.
357).

If you can’t rely on textbooks, what can you rely on?

District Curriculum Guides—Purpose, Approach, and

Findings

Floden, Porter, Schmidt, Freeman, and Schwille (1980) found that

the content of district curriculum guides did not align well to district
adopted texts; but teachers generally followed the textbooks, not the
curriculum (textbook to curriculum alignment).

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR STUDIES OF TEXTBOOK

TO TEST ALIGNMENT

The studies pointed out two competing trends. The studies quoted in
the first section of this chapter showed a lack of alignment between
textbooks and standardized tests, curriculum-embedded tests, and
instruction. But Schmidt et al. (2001) found a clear alignment
between the content of texts, the time devoted to instruction, and the
test results, although they were dealing with the TIMSS test results,
not state standardized tests. Here’s one way to make sense of the
competing trends. The work of Schmidt et al. (2001) shows that
teachers tend to take direction for their instruction based on the
content of the textbook. Further, when the text is aligned to the
assessment (the more the country’s text was aligned with the
content of the TIMSS test), the more time is spent on tested topics,
with the results indicating that the better the alignment between text
and test, the better the results.

Figure 3.2 United States: The Relationship of Textbook Coverage

to Standards, Instructional Time, and Achievement Gain

Howson (1995) suggests that U.S. textbooks cover too many

topics, so teachers must choose which ones to teach. Because
textbooks are produced nationally, there is little evidence that tested
topics are emphasized enough, with so many topics (over three
hundred) covered. Teachers looking for guidance on what is most
important to cover won’t find answers in the textbooks because the
textbooks cover “everything” once lightly. Such findings should be a
warning to districts: purchasing a textbook as a vehicle to align
instruction to standards and state tests will not work, at least in the
United States.

QUALITY OF TEXTBOOK INSTRUCTION

In this next set of studies we look at AAAS’s Project 2061. AAAS

evaluated ten to fifteen math and science textbooks for middle and
high school. They determined the alignment of the textbooks to a
series of benchmarks contained in most state standards (textbook to
standards alignment). They also examined the quality of instructional
guidance given by the textbook to the teacher (textbook to instruction
alignment). Here, alignment is not just the content match but how the
content is presented in the text or the quality of instruction.

Science and Math Textbooks and Quality of Instruction—

Purpose and Approach

AAAS examined seven qualities:

1. identifying a sense of purpose

2. building on List of Figures ideas
3. engaging students in the subject area
4. developing ideas
5. promoting student thinking
6. assessing student progress
7. enhancing the learning environment

Findings

This information was summarized on a rating scale. Figures 3.3,

3.4, and 3.5 summarize their work.

Figure 3.3 Instructional Ratings of Middle School Mathematics

Textbooks
Figure 3.4 Quality Assessment of Middle School Science Texts
Figure 3.5 Project 2061 Instructional Analysis of Biology
Textbooks
 Figure 3.3 shows the math textbook series in the first column, the
scoring of Quality of Instruction in the second column (text to
instruction alignment), and coverage or alignment of the text
contents to selected benchmarks or standards (text to standards
alignment) in the third column (Kulm, Roseman, & Treistman, 1999).
Notice that only four of twelve textbooks are rated satisfactory. Only
three of the twelve textbooks cover more than three benchmarks
well, indicated by a rating of Most Content. This indicates problems
in textbooks and their alignment to standards for middle school math
texts.
 Science texts fared no better when examined with similar criteria.
The first nine textbooks (including books from large publishers)
all were rated as unsatisfactory in physical science, life science, and
earth science. Six of the ten textbooks received most of their ratings
below 1.0 on a 3-point scale, where above 2.0 was considered
satisfactory. Only one science text was given a (barely) satisfactory
rating for physical science, and this textbook is not widely available.
School districts are spending millions of dollars on textbooks that are
rated unsatisfactory.
Biology texts were rated similarly.
Figure 3.5 indicates that most biology textbooks are rated below
satisfactory on almost all rated categories. Of the nineteen
categories rated (see left hand side of chart), only one category—
Justifying Lesson Sequence—received a fair rating, while the other
eighteen categories were rated as poor for most of the ten textbooks
rated here. For example, in the category Aligning Assessments to
Goals all books received a poor rating with the exception of one that
was not rated.

Reading Texts and Alignment—Purpose and Approach

Reading texts have similarly bad ratings with respect to alignment

issues (Manzo, 2007). Goodman, Shannon, Freeman, and Murphy,
(1987) analyzed basal readers for elementary schools. They used
the word mismatch for what we would call misalignment.

Findings

Goodman and his colleagues found:

a mismatch [misalignment] between basal and standards of

expert approaches to reading [text to standards alignment] (p.
66)
 a mismatch [misalignment] between basals and students’
prerequisite skills [text to instruction alignment] (p. 69)
a mismatch [misalignment] between basals’ comprehension
instruction and students’ instructional needs [text to instruction
alignment] (p. 82)
a mismatch [misalignment] between basals’ curriculum and the
content of the formative assessments included in the basals
[text to curriculum-embedded test alignment] (pp. 92, 107, 114,
121)

Most textbook salespeople claim that the texts are aligned to all
forty-nine states’ standards and assessments (Iowa is the only state
that does not have state standards and assessments). But these in-
depth analyses of the textbooks indicate a lack of alignment to
standards and assessments. This alignment information should
provide a cautionary tale for those who think they can rely on
textbooks to be the only source of curriculum guidance for a district’s
teachers.

MODIFYING THE USE OF TEXTBOOKS TO IMPROVE

ALIGNMENT
The next two studies show examples of how alignment has been
used in the real world of school districts to improve student results
within a year’s time. These studies reinforce the idea that when
districts control their curriculum or materials, assuring alignment with
high-stakes tests, results can be both large and positive. An
important indicator of quality of instruction highlighted in these
studies is the degree of alignment between the curriculum or the
curriculum materials and the test.

Systematic Modification of Instructional Materials and

Instruction Based on Textbook Alignment—Purpose and
Approach
 Moss-Mitchell (1998) looked at third-grade mathematics
achievement in a large school district (4,000 third graders) in DeKalb
County, Georgia, when the district’s texts were aligned to the test
(text to test alignment). Fifty-five percent of the students were
receiving free or reduced lunch, an indication of poverty. The study’s
purpose was “to examine the implication for educational
administrators of effectiveness of the DeKalb County (Georgia)
school system’s curriculum alignment after one year of
implementation” (Moss-Mitchell, 1998, p. 8). The Moss-Mitchell study
examined the effects of curriculum alignment when analyzed by
students’ socioeconomic level, race, gender, and school size.
The district used two approaches to curriculum alignment. Four
schools adopted Evans-Newton, Inc., of Scottsdale, Arizona,
centering on staff development, monitoring, and managing. The
other approach, which was district directed, began with a correlation
of the ITBS (Iowa Test of Basic Skills) to the math textbook (textbook
to standardized test alignment). Twenty-three percent of the content
in the textbook was not covered by the ITBS (Moss-Mitchell, 1998, p.
85), meaning 77% of the content was aligned between the textbook
and the test. This reinforces previously reported textbook alignment
findings (see Freeman et al., 1983) where the textbook to test
alignment was less than 51% in all cases. The district then created
or selected additional curricular materials that filled in the gaps
between the textbook and the test. Instructional coordinators worked
with six schools apiece to help faculty use the additional materials
and the curriculum. (This improved the textbook to curriculum
alignment, the textbook to instruction alignment, and the textbook to
student assignment alignment; it is shown on the alignment matrix
for this chapter.)

Findings

At the end of the year, students had improved six NCEs (Normal
Curve Equivalent—a scale for averaging student achievement
scores) from 49 to 55 on the ITBS standardized test. This was a
statistically significant improvement. “There was no statistically
significant difference in the effect of curriculum alignment after one
year of treatment when analyzed by socioeconomic level, race,
gender, or school size” (Moss-Mitchell, 1998, p. 96). This means that
traditional predictors of scores, like socioeconomic level or race, did
not factor into the improvement in scores. Perhaps ensuring
alignment will assist in closing the achievement gap.
Moss-Mitchell’s study produced results: the study showed the
effects of alignment canceling out more traditional predictors of
student achievement such as socioeconomic status, gender, race, or
teacher effect. Moss-Mitchell studied the alignment of the textbook
with the state mandated standardized test after ensuring alignment
with curriculum, student assignments, and instruction.

The Price-Baugh Study: Misalignment May Be Partly Due

to the Content of Textbooks—Purpose and Approach

The Price-Baugh study (1997) examined the effects of alignment

between text and the state developed test (Texas Assessment of
Academic Skills or TAAS) in Houston Independent School district for
Grade 7, encompassing 10,233 students in thirty-five middle
schools. The textbook content was identified by TAAS descriptors (a
similar approach was taken by the Howson study that used TIMSS
descriptors). Then, Price-Baugh counted the number of skill-level
and application-level word problems for each TAAS descriptor. She
then “correlated the amount of practice and explanation in the
textbook for 11 target components with the percentage of students
correctly answering TAAS problems on those target components”
(Price-Baugh, 1997, p. 109). This is an example of a test to textbook
alignment. Her findings follow.

Findings
 Student achievement was positively correlated with all but one
textbook variable. High levels of variance (over 55%) were explained
by the “number of available skill-level practice items in the textbook
for each target component” (p. 111); the number of pages devoted to
practice problems; and the number of application-level problems
included in the text. This means, for districts adopting textbooks, that
the amount of practice students receive in textbooks or curriculum
material on areas that are tested has a significant effect on student
achievement. Districts will want to spend time doing their own
textbook correlation to state test categories, rather than relying on
publisher’s correlations because they generally don’t include the
number of problems in specific areas tested. Like Moss-Mitchell’s
study, Price-Baugh also confirmed the positive effect of text to
standardized test alignment.
The studies discussed in this chapter are charted on the
alignment matrix in Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.6 The Alignment Matrix—Textbooks

 Figure 3.6 shows that research about textbook alignment has
focused on instruction, student assignments, curriculum-embedded
tests, state tests, state standards, and curriculum, covering all
aspects of the written, taught, and tested curriculum.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR TEXTBOOK ALIGNMENT

All of the authors discussed in this section point out difficulties with
relying solely on textbooks to ensure alignment, yet Schmidt et al.
(2001) shows that textbooks provide clues that help teachers decide
what to emphasize when teaching. Textbooks used in these studies
indicate problems with alignment to standards, standardized test
specifications, curriculum-embedded tests, curriculum, and
instruction. Howson (1995) points out that given the number of topics
covered in textbooks (enough to fill three years’ worth of instruction),
they are best used as a resource rather than a guide for teachers’
instructional decisions. This would be a dramatic change in practice,
one that would need to be reinforced by staff development initiatives.

WHAT DISTRICTS CAN DO

#3–1

Coverage isn’t enough—gather data on student practice

opportunities in textbooks.
The Price-Baugh and Floden et al. studies show that coverage is
not enough, but student opportunity to practice is important. Districts
should obtain the data so they can make a judgment of whether
there is enough practice in their materials for instruction that is
aligned with high-stakes tests. Here are a couple of ways to gather
the information.
Some states don’t directly specify what is on their tests. Most
states release sample items, such as the document in Figure 3.7
downloaded from the Connecticut State Department of Education
Web site
(http://www.csde.state.ct.us/public/cedar/assessment/cmt/resources.
htm).
Obviously, this is one page of a multipage document, but it is
sufficient for an example. On another sheet of paper, place columns
that indicate the data you want to retrieve from your textbook. The
top section might look like the row shown in Figure 3.8.
Duplicate as many pages as you have pages of items and tape
them together. Now proceed through the textbook and make the
tallies for the five columns. Many teachers can be involved in this
initial activity so all teachers understand how the data was gathered.

Figure 3.7 Connecticut Mastery Test—Sample Grade 3 Items

 Once the initial data is gathered, convene a representative
committee for the course or grade level. Ask the committee to make
a judgment of whether there is enough practice in the textbook to
ensure that all students will be able to do a similar problem on the
state test.
For areas not adequately addressed by the textbook, material will
have to be found or developed that will provide students with
practice for these concepts. Post this material on the district’s Web
site for ease of distribution.
 Finally, adjust the curriculum expectations to ensure that all
students have the opportunity for adequate practice on the items. If
you don’t have a districtwide curriculum, this activity provides a good
place to begin. At a minimum, a committee needs to specify the
topics and the specific times of the year when they should be
covered with a list of locations where practice items can be found
(e.g., the text and the district’s Web site).
A similar process can be followed if the state gives the test
specifications, such as those from Connecticut shown in Figure 3.9
(from
http://www.csde.state.ct.uspublic/cedar/assessment/cmt/resources/ct
b_presentation/lindabond_ctb_math_presentation.pdf).
Place the topics you are interested in analyzing on the right side.
Place the rows shown in Figure 3.8 along the top.

Figure 3.8 Sample Sheet for Determining Amount of Practice for

Curriculum Topics

Figure 3.9 Aligning Content Strands From the State Standards to

Practice Items in the Textbook
Pluses
This analysis not only matches content but also indexes the
amount of practice and the number of textbook pages that
address the topic.
This analysis can be done expeditiously by teaching staff.
This analysis will point out areas that are not covered with
enough material and where the practice is inadequate.

Other Considerations
 Note that this analysis doesn’t consider content not covered by
the tests. Some content is important but won’t be on the test
(e.g., listening and speaking in English language arts).
This will not address all of the standards for the subject area,
because state tests don’t assess all the standards in all the
subject areas.
This may create the false impression that the district is only
interested in alignment to tests. Such data collection and
analysis should involve other sources of alignment as well.
(Subsequent chapters will have some ideas.)

#3–2

Conduct textbook alignment studies keyed to test results.

Many states offer item analysis reports or cluster analysis reports
that show how students did on various items or sections of the state
assessment. Conduct similar analyses to the one above, but instead
of using all the clusters, use only those where students did very well
and those where they did poorly. Gather the data for each grade
level or course that leads up to the test. Then compare the number
of textbook pages and the amount of practice for students on the
high versus low items. Any patterns in the data? Generally you may
find that clusters where students did well, there was adequate
practice, and those where students did poorly, there was inadequate
practice. If this isn’t the case, can you figure out why? Did kids score
well but not have much practice because practice was provided at
previous grade levels? Did kids score poorly but get a lot of practice?
Maybe they should have been introduced to the topic at a previous
grade level so the instructional sequence for that cluster wouldn’t be
as demanding, and students could actually practice to mastery.
Similar data analysis could take place with curriculum-embedded
tests or quarterly assessments, provided that the quarterly
assessments have been developed according to written test
specifications. Just obtaining a copy of the state test (or a sample
state test) is no guarantee that you know the test specifications. If
only the sample state test is available, you may have to infer the test
specifications from the sample test itself. Your inferences may or
may not be correct.

Pluses
Test results are being used to feed data back into your system
to improve it.
Students will be better prepared for next year’s test because
areas of weakness have been directly addressed and the
curriculum subsequently changed for the following year.

Other Considerations
Some states don’t publish sample items or cluster
specifications. (Pressure should be brought to these states so
that they share the test specifications.) Districts can still
complete the analysis using their own testing products (quarterly
assessments or district developed curriculum-embedded tests.)

#3–3

Preview textbook purchases by analyzing practice

opportunities for areas of weakness.
Before making textbook decisions, conduct an analysis of
textbook to state test match. If a complete analysis is too time
consuming, choose areas the district has shown weakness in on
previous state tests. Examine the amount of practice students
actually get on areas tested by the state test.

Pluses

Data can be used to make a judgment of whether there is

adequate practice on areas tested by the state.
 The district will know before purchasing the texts whether
deficiencies in coverage exist and then can rectify the situation
by supplementing material and instructional strategies on a
districtwide basis.

Other Considerations
Data is only gathered on textbook to test alignment. An
important topic may be covered in the textbook, but not covered
on the test, and would be missed in this analysis.

#3–4

Survey teachers to determine the time spent on textbook

topics before establishing district guidelines of time to be spent
on topics.
Combining this data collection activity with one of the previous
activities that gathers data on the alignment of textbooks to tests will
assist a district in determining guidelines for the amount of time to be
spent on curriculum topics. Figure 3.10 shows a sheet that might be
given to all sixth-grade teachers in the district. The sheet requests
identifying information, and then requests that teachers specify the
number of days and the pages not covered in the textbook.
Once this data has been collected and collated, a district
mathematics committee may want to examine it for the high and low
number of days spent on each chapter, by teacher and by school, to
determine patterns. Teachers may allocate very different amounts of
time to coverage. The committee may want to check with teachers
who vary greatly from others to determine their rationale for their
decisions about time for coverage. The committee may then
determine if there is an appropriate amount of time to spend on each
unit, based on the data from the survey. Such time allocations can
be very useful to beginning teachers as they make decisions about
depth of coverage for each unit. Alternatively, a survey could be
developed that would gather information on how much time was
spent with each activity for each unit. Results could point to topics
where teachers may need staff development to improve their skills
and lessen the amount of time it takes to cover a topic.

Pluses

Providing teachers with a district-developed timeline for

coverage of textbook units sets a standard that will assist
beginning teachers in planning coverage during the year.
Anomalies in the data may indicate where potential difficulties lie
as well as the need for further staff development in a particular
area.

Other Considerations
Providing district guidance for time on units may be perceived
as limiting the flexibility teachers need to determine appropriate
times needed for coverage.

Figure 3.10 Aligning Textbook Topics to Teachers’ Use of

Instructional Time
Copyright © 2009 by Corwin Press. All rights reserved. Reprinted from Curriculum
alignment: research-based strategies for increasing student achievement by David A.
Squires. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, www.corwinpress.com. Reproduction
authorized only for the local school site or nonprofit organization that has purchased this
book.
 4
Alignment of Standards and Standardized
Tests

In this chapter, we will examine the research surrounding alignment

of standards and standardized, or high-stakes, tests to other areas of
the alignment matrix. Standards generally define what students
should know and be able to do. Standards describe what student
should learn. Standardized (or state) tests are there to assess how
well students perform on the standards. We know that it is not
possible to assess all standards, so tests are designed to sample the
most important standards. For example, language arts standards
generally have categories of reading, writing, speaking, and
listening. Yet most state tests only assess reading and writing, even
though many states have standards for speaking and listening as
well.
The relationship between standards and standardized tests is the
alignment area that has been most heavily studied. As states
developed their standards and assessments, they needed ways to
ensure that the state assessments were aligned to the state
standards. Many of the studies reported here show disparities
(nonalignment) between state standards and state assessments.
What are some of the other relationships between standards and
standardized assessments and the other components of the
alignment matrix? The studies covered in this chapter are placed on
the alignment matrix in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1 The Alignment Matrix—State Assessments

 The alignment matrix for standardized tests shows that the
majority of work has been completed in aligning state tests and state
standards. This is understandable because there are enormous
policy implications for the forty-nine states that have state standards
and tests. Little research has been done aligning state tests to
district assessments, student assignments, teacher lesson plans, or
instruction.

MARZANO’S STANDARDS COMPILATION AND THE WEB

SITE FOR ACHIEVE, INC.—PURPOSE AND APPROACH

At the very beginning of the standards movement, Kendall and

Marzano (1997a) suggested that districts develop their own
standards. Then Marzano, while at Midwestern Regional Educational
Laboratory (MCREL), saw the need to compile the standards from
states and national professional associations into one document. He
then synthesized all of the standards for each subject area into one
set of standards for the subject area, published in book and CD-
ROM format as Content Knowledge: A Compendium of Standards
and Benchmarks for K–12 Education (Kendall & Marzano, 1997b).
The Content Knowledge volume is most useful to those who want to
create their own district standards using this document as a
template, and it provides one synthesis of important ideas that are
encompassed in many of the states’ standards documents.
Marzano then used these standards as benchmarks for
comparing any state’s or national professional association’s
standards to each other. He created a Web site where queries for
any state can be made to compare (align) one set of standards to
another. Commercial applications allow test makers or textbook
companies to align their tests and materials with all state standards
at once. The Achieve, Inc. Web site is at www.achieve.org.
Achieve has four criteria (Resnick, Rothman, Slattery, & Vranek,
2003) for alignment of assessments or textbooks to standards:

Content. Does the test measure what the state standards

indicate that all students should know and be able to do at a
particular grade level? If not, is it because the standards are too
vague to make a determination, or is it because test items
measure only part of what the standards ask for?
Performance. Are students asked to demonstrate the skills the
standards expect? For example, if the standards say that
students will analyze the characteristics of various literary forms,
does the test ask them to evaluate different literary forms, or
does it merely ask students to identify one type of literature?
Level of Difficulty. Are test items easy, medium, or hard, and is
the range of difficulty appropriately distributed across all the
items? What makes them difficult—the content they are
assessing or another factor, such as the language of the
question? Overall, is each assessment appropriately rigorous for
students who have been taught to the state standards?
Balance and Range. Does the test as a whole gauge the depth
and breadth of the standards and objectives outlined in state
standards documents? If not, are the standards that are
assessed the most important for the grade level? Overall, do the
 assessments for elementary, middle, and high school focus on
the most important content that all students should know?

Findings

The meaning of alignment has been further differentiated so that a

match is not just a match of one set of content to another but also to
other characteristics, such as balance and range or level of difficulty.
Alignment is becoming more precise yet more difficult. Currently,
Achieve provides alignment services for states and districts,
particularly in alignment of assessments to state standards with
other services, such as standards benchmarking and augmentation
analysis, where off-the-shelf tests are compared with a state’s
standards (Council of Chief State School Officers, 2003).
The alignment matrix at the beginning of this chapter shows that
Marzano’s products look at the alignment between state standards,
state tests, and textbooks. Webb’s studies, which we will examine
next, look at the relationship between state standards and
standardized tests.

THE WEBB STUDIES: ALIGNING STATE STANDARDS,

ASSESSMENTS, AND POLICIES—PURPOSE AND
APPROACH
Webb (1997) found ways to confirm the alignment between state
standards and state assessments. Webb examined three
approaches toward alignment. The first, Sequential Development,
means developing documents in sequence so the first document
(e.g., state standards) is aligned and used as a reference for the
second document (e.g., curriculum frameworks or assessments).
The second approach, Expert Review, uses experts to review the
alignment between standards and assessments. The third approach
(described in Chapter 7 with TIMSS, in Porter’s work, and in this
chapter’s discussion of Marzano’s work) creates a common
description of curriculum, then analyzes the alignment between the
common descriptions and other parts of the educational system,
such as standards, assessments, instruction, and instructional plans.
None of these approaches has specific criteria for judging alignment;
in many cases it is a case of alignment or nonalignment based
strictly on the content of the standards and the content of the
assessment. Webb’s contribution is his development of five major
criteria for alignment of expectations (standards) and assessments in
math and science education. Additionally, Webb put into perspective
the complete range of alignment possibilities to include such ideas
as policy elements and the use of technology, materials, and tools.
Webb applied his ideas to examining the alignment between
expectations (standards) and assessments for four states, using
some of the criteria for alignment he proposed.
Webb (1997) begins by discussing the concept of alignment:

Two or more system components are aligned if they are in

agreement or match each other. … Alignment is being used to
characterize the agreement or match among a set of
documents or multiple components of a state or district
system. (p. 3)

Then Webb defines alignment. “Alignment is the degree to which

expectations and assessments are in agreement and serve in
conjunction with one another to guide the system towards students
learning what they are expected to know and do” (p. 4).
Note that Webb is focusing here on alignment between
assessments (state tests) and expectations (state standards).
Webb then developed criteria for judging alignment. This
continues the expansion of the concept of alignment. The first area
of alignment in Webb’s study is concerned with content focus, that is,
how closely the expectations (standards) and the assessments
(state tests) share the following attributes.
The first attribute is categorical congruence, that is, the same
categories of content appear both in the standards and in the test.
For example, if “problem solving” appeared as a major heading in
the standards, we would look for “problem solving” to be a major
heading in the test specifications. This is consistent with previous
ways of determining alignment.
The second attribute, depth of knowledge, involves the cognitive
complexity of the information (Figure 4.2) and the transfer of this
knowledge to new situations. For example, the standards might state
that students should design, conduct, and interpret a statistical
experiment. The assessment would have the same depth of
knowledge if students were provided with the opportunity to design,
conduct, and interpret a statistical experiment. If students only had
the opportunity to design the experiment, but not to conduct or
interpret it, the depth of knowledge on the assessment would be less
and the alignment weak.
The third attribute, range of knowledge correspondence,
indicates whether standards and assessments “cover a comparable
span of topics and ideas within categories” (Webb, 1997). For
example, if the standards state that students should be able to read
four different types of maps and the assessment tests students’
ability to read four different types of maps, the alignment would be
perfect. Because of the short amount of time devoted to testing,
generally not all standards will be completely assessed. The
assessment may only test the students’ knowledge of one type of
map.
The fourth and last attribute is balance of representation. All of
the standards need to be represented in the assessments. When
balance of representation is lacking, students could be judged with
the test—as meeting the expectations or standards—even though
they have not been tested on all the standards.
The second level in Webb’s alignment analysis consisted of a
rating of depth of knowledge of the objectives. This was a way to see
if the standards required the same depth of knowledge as is required
in the specifications for the state assessments.

Figure 4.2 Depth of Knowledge Categories

 Webb trained coders from the four states studied to validly and
reliably rate the alignment between the state standards
(expectations) and the state assessments.

Findings

A summary of Webb’s alignment results is shown in Figure 4.3.

The columns show:

the state
the content area
the grade where students were assessed
the number of state standards and the number of state
objectives
the number of items in the state assessment
the percent of standards with acceptable alignment

In the depth-of-knowledge category, no item aligned 100%,

showing that the state tests studied do not assess for the same
depth of knowledge as proposed by the state standards.
Most of the alignments cover the areas of skill/concept and
strategic thinking. Few objectives dealt only with recall and extended
thinking. Extended thinking involved a problem that might take at
least ten minutes to do; even so, there were quite a number of
extended thinking items on the assessments.
The alignment area with the fewest alignments is range of
knowledge correspondence. Being insufficient in the range of
knowledge correspondence means “Important forms or specific
cases of major concepts or ideas given in the expected performance
are excluded from or ignored on assessments or their specifications”
(Webb, 1997). This observation may be partially explained by
comparing the number of objectives on the test with the number of
items. In most cases there are more objectives than there are items.

Figure 4.3 Summary of Alignment Analysis for State Standards

and State Tests
SOURCE: From Determining alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics
and science education, by N. L. Webb (1997, January), NISE Brief, 1. Madison: Wisconsin
Center for Education Research, National Institute for Science Education, University of
Wisconsin.
Reprinted with permission.
NOTE: a. Categorical Concurrence
Depth of Knowledge Consistency
Range of Knowledge Correspondence
Balance of Representation
b. Total number of assessment items
c. und—undetermined because too few and only sample items were included in the
analysis
 Figure 4.3 also indicates that different states and different tests
within the same states have different alignment characteristics. For
example, in State C’s science test at Grade 4 and 8, there were
insufficient items to determine categorical congruence, depth, range,
or balance. On the other hand, State B’s mathematics test for Grade
8 showed the highest overall alignment.
Teachers and administrators need to understand how well their
state tests are aligned to their state standards. If the alignment is
high, then coverage of the standards is likely to produce high scores
on the tests. On the other hand, if the alignment is low or nonexistent
between the state standards and the assessments, then the test
specifications need to be closely examined and the alignment with
the district curriculum determined.
More general findings about alignment of state standards to
assessments follow:

The analyses indicated that the standards of the four states

varied in what content students were expected to know, the
level of specificity at which expectations were expressed, and
organization. … Alignment between assessments and
standards varied across grade levels, content areas, and
states without any discernable pattern. Assessments and
standards of three of the four states satisfied the categorical
congruence criterion. This criterion, the most common
conception of alignment, required the assessment and
standards to include the same content topics. Alignment was
found to be the weakest on the depth of knowledge
consistency and range of knowledge correspondence criteria.
Generally, assessment items required a lower level of
knowledge and did not span the full spectrum of knowledge
as expressed in the standards. However, for the knowledge
and skills identified in the standards and addressed by the
assessments, generally the assessment items were evenly
distributed. (Webb, 1997, p. vii)
 Webb shows that standards and assessments can be aligned
using valid and reliable criteria and shows how the process was
used in conducting an analysis of alignment on standards and
assessments from four states.

Districts could also use such a process as they seek to align their
curriculum-embedded assessments to state standards or the
significant tasks in their curriculum to state standards and
assessments (Webb, 1999).

WEBB’S WAT WEB SITE—PURPOSE AND APPROACH

Webb, Alt, Ely, Cormier, and Vesperman (2006) now have developed
a Web-based tool and training system that makes Webb’s processes
for aligning state standards and assessments automated and
accessible to anyone. With access to the state assessments, anyone
can create their own valid and reliable studies of alignment between
state standards and state assessments. The tool, called the Web
Alignment Tool or WAT, is available at the Web site
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/WAT/.

Findings

The Webb process has also been used to align alternative

assessments appropriate for special education students to state
standards (Tindall, 2006; Wise & Alt, 2006). Assessments included
performance assessments and portfolio assessments for two
unnamed states’ special education students. The Web site allows
creation of an alignment study between the assessments and the
standards. As the paper describes specific alignment procedures,
these procedures could be replicated for districts interested in how
their assessment system aligns to state standards by using the WAT.
The Web site can also align English Language Proficiency
assessments used with English Language Learners to state
standards (Cook, 2006; Malagon, Rosenberg, & Winter, 2006).
Webb’s work is a great example of how a decade of research results
became a useful tool for state departments of education and others
to validly and reliably conduct alignment studies.

THE BROWDER STUDY: ALIGNMENT IN SPECIAL

EDUCATION—PURPOSE AND APPROACH

The next study, Browder et al. (2004), is another example of

alignment of instruction in special education. The 1997 amendments
to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) required
states to provide access to the general curriculum and alternate
assessments for student with disabilities who were unable to
participate in statewide assessment. Previous alternative
assessments had been aligned to the functional curriculum that
guided special education students’ progress. Requiring alternative
assessments to align with the subject area state standards provided
a paradigm shift. No longer was alignment to the functional
curriculum enough. Now, the alternative assessments had to align
with the state standards for all students. The purpose of the study by
Browder et al. (2004) was to examine the alignment of the content
on alternate assessments to academic standards and functional life
domains. Three types of assessment questions were categorized:
Were the assessments still aligned with the older functional
curriculum? Or were the assessments aligned with the subject area
state standards? Or was there a combination of assessments that
focused both on the functional curriculum and the state standards?
The authors hypothesized that “curriculum transformation would be
evident if these examples were closely aligned (to the subject-based
state standards)” (Browder et al., 2004, p. 213).
“Data were collected from content experts and stakeholders who
reviewed the examples of extended state standards provided in
states’ alternate assessment materials” (p. 213). The content experts
followed Crocker and Algina’s (1986) process for content validation:
 1. Define the performance domains of interest.
2. Select a panel of qualified experts.
3. Provide a structured framework for the process of matching
items to the performance domains.
4. Collect and analyze the responses.

The alternative assessments from thirty-one states were collected

along with the standards and performance indicators for language
arts and math.

Findings

The experts found that some of the alternative assessments were

aligned to subject area performance indicators and standards.
Eighty-six percent of the math experts and 70% of the language arts
experts indicated that some states’ lists of performance indicators
were clearly linked to the subject area standards. (Colorado provided
a superior example.) Conversely, 78% of the language arts experts
agreed that some of the performance indicators clearly were not
aligned to language arts standards. There appeared to be general
agreement on whether the standards aligned well or did not align
well.
Sixty percent of the experts in severe disabilities stated that the
states overall did not do a good job of aligning the general curriculum
with their performance indicators, although one state, Connecticut,
was cited as an example of properly assessing the general
curriculum. Eleven of the thirty-one states incorporated both the
academic standards and the functional skills curriculum in their
performance assessments, and the experts noted that the blending
of functional and academic curriculum provided some of the
strongest examples of alignment between standards and alternative
assessments. The authors concluded with some policy
recommendations for alternative assessment practices.
This study demonstrates that the alignment process may be
linked to the problem of content validation, a part of modern test
theory. Although the specifics of the alignment process were not
clear in the article, it may be that content validation work needs to be
expanded into the field of aligning curriculum, standards, and
assessments.

VERTICAL ALIGNMENT—PURPOSE AND APPROACH

Vertical alignment examines whether standards and tests at one
grade level are built upon the standards and tests at the previous
grade levels. The diagram in Figure 4.4 suggests how this might look
on the alignment matrix with a comparison of how Grade 4 standards
and assessments are aligned with Grade 5 standards and
assessments.
The other areas of the alignment matrix are not covered in these
investigations.
Two papers deal with vertical alignment: Wise and Alt (2006) and
Wise, Zhang, Winter, Taylor, & Becke (2006). Four questions guided
the first study:

What level of concurrence is there between objectives for the

two grades?
To what extent do comparable objectives increase in depth from
one grade to the next?
To what extent does the range of content increase from one
grade to the next?
How does the balance of representation change from one grade
to the next?

The results were used to suggest improvements in the alignment

of one grade level’s standards to the next grade level’s standards.

Figure 4.4 Vertical Alignment Between Grade Levels

Findings

The results followed Webb’s formulation using four alignment

categories:

Categorical Concurrence. Results for each standard are

summarized by a simple listing of the objectives common to,
or at least partially covered in, both grades and the objectives
unique to the lower or higher grades. The ratio of the number
of common standards to the total number of standards serves
as an overall indicator of alignment.

Depth of Knowledge. Increases in depth of knowledge can

be assessed by computing the proportion of objectives at one
grade that are judged to be covered in greater depth by
corresponding objectives at the next higher grade. Note that
simple comparisons of the depth of knowledge ratings from a
Webb assessment of test alignment may be misleading. A
skill which involves deduction or novel application at one
grade can become much more routine at a higher grade. In
this case, the same skill would be judged to be lower depth at
the higher grade, running counter to expectations that depth
should increase over grades.
 Range of Knowledge. Increases in range of knowledge can
be assessed by computing the proportion of objectives at one
grade that are judged to be covered more broadly by
corresponding objectives at the next higher grade and also
the proportion of objectives at the higher grade that are new.

Balance of Representation. Grade-to-grade changes in the

balance of representation can be assessed by counting the
number of objectives in each of the broad area of standards
for each grade. Alternatively, representation could be
assessed in terms of the number of test questions targeted for
each of the broad standards (Wise & Alt, 2006, pp. 65–66).

This process was field-tested using Delaware’s new grade level

expectations (GLEs) in English language arts and mathematics for
Grades 3 and 10 (Wise et al., 2006). This looked at the vertical
alignment of the GLEs. For example, did Grade 3 GLEs provide a
base on which Grade 4 GLEs were built? While inter-rater reliability
was marginal, the process did expose where the GLEs could be
improved.

QUELLMALZ, KREIKEMEIER, HAYDEL DEBARGER, AND

HAERTEL USES AN ALIGNMENT PROCESS TO REFINE
MEANING OF A STANDARD ON SCIENCE INQUIRY AND
COMPARE THE ALIGNMENT OF SCIENCE INQUIRY TO
THREE LARGE-SCALE ASSESSMENTS—PURPOSE AND
APPROACH

Quellmalz et al. (2006) were first interested in examining the

meaning of science inquiry before examining the alignment of
science inquiry standards to three tests: the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), the TIMSS test, and the New
Standards Science Reference Exam (NSSRE)—an exam many
states have considered using for their science tests.
 These researchers began by examining the science inquiry
standards of the National Science Education Standards (NSES) put
forth by the National Research Council in order to understand the
components and design an alignment protocol. After examining the
NSES standards about inquiry (science inquiry is one of seven major
content standards in science), they found that “descriptions of the
NSES inquiry skills were so global or overlapping that clear
classification was problematic” (p. 2). Test items were tentatively
classified by a panel of national science assessment experts and
then given to students who were asked to think about the items
aloud. These think alouds and additional interviews with the students
were used to confirm the expert judgments and also expand on
unclear areas of the standards. Based on these data, the meanings
of the standards were clarified. Figure 4.5 shows the initial standards
on the left with the clarified standards on the right.
The clarified standards on the right were then used to determine
the alignment of the clarified standards with the three tests. A
complete listing of the meaning of science inquiry is outlined in
Figure 4.6.

Figure 4.5 NSES Inquiry Standards Segmented Into Component

Codes and Descriptions
Figure 4.6 NSES Science Inquiry Component Codes
 This clarified list of standards was then aligned by the assessment
experts to the three tests.
The alignment process followed similar procedures to Webb
(1997) to establish categorical concurrence, that is, the categories
on the test are similar to the categories in the standards. National
science assessment experts used the standards in Figure 4.6 to
code each item on each test. Figure 4.7 highlights what they found.
Inquiry items made up a significant percentage of the testing, with
almost all performance tasks being inquiry related.

Figure 4.7 Alignment of NAEP, TIMSS, and NSSRE Items in

Different Item Formats With Inquiry Standards
Figure 4.8 Classification of Science Items as Non-Inquiry or
Inquiry Items From NAEP 1996 and 2000

Two different test administrations of the NAEP were coded, one for
1996 and one for 2000 (Figure 4.8). Surprisingly, there was a
significant decline in the percentage of items that tested inquiry on
the 2000 test. (This is surprising because when two versions of a
test are given, there is an assumption that the tests cover the same
content. For science inquiry, this didn’t happen with the two versions
of the NAEP). The same finding was also true for the three versions
of the TIMSS tests examined.

Findings

The next chart (Figure 4.9) summarizes the alignment of all three
tests to the modified standards.
 The chart shows that different inquiry standards are addressed
by different assessments.

Figure 4.9 Classification of NAEP, TIMSS, and NSSRE Inquiry

Items Into Inquiry Ability or Component
 So how one test defines inquiry is not how another defines inquiry,
as the test questions are addressing different areas of inquiry in
different ways. For teachers and administrators, it is important to
understand how specific test questions are coded (i.e., for inquiry)
and what a score on that coded area actually means. Based on the
research cited here, we will flesh out two strategies later on in
Chapter 6: learn to analyze curriculum materials and align
assessment to curriculum.
THE BOWE AND KINGSBURY STUDY: STATE CUT
SCORES VARY GREATLY WHEN COMPARED TO EACH
OTHER; STATE ASSESSMENTS ARE NOT AT THE SAME
LEVEL OF DIFFICULTY—PURPOSE AND APPROACH
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act requires that by 2014 all
students be proficient in reading and math. The act requires that
states develop tests and establish cut scores indicating proficiency.
Is a passing score in one state equivalent to a passing score in
another state?
Bowe and Kingsbury (2007) tested 9,000 to 36,000 students per
state in Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, and New Hampshire with the
Northwest Evaluation Association’s (NWEA) RIT assessment. The
students also took the state assessment. Bowe and Kingsbury then
compared students’ scores on the state tests with their scores on the
NWEA RIT.

Findings

The following chart (Figure 4.10) shows the variability of the cut
scores of the four states. These conclusions could be made because
the test that all the students in the four states took allowed a look at
the alignment between state cut scores.

Figure 4.10 Comparison of State Test Proficiency Cut Scores by

NWEA Percentile
THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL
STATISTICS STUDY (2007): STATES VARY GREATLY
WHEN THEIR CUT SCORES ON STATE PROFICIENCY
TESTS ARE COMPARED WITH THE CUT SCORES ON
THE NAEP—PURPOSE AND APPROACH
The National Center for Educational Statistics conducted a study that
compared the cut scores on the NAEP with the cut scores for state
tests.

Findings

The results are provided in Figure 4.11.

The NAEP proficient cut score is 238 and the basic cut scores is
209. Mapping or aligning the state cut scores shows that all of them
are below the proficiency scores required by the NAEP. The chart
shows that students reaching proficiency in various states are at
different levels of performance. All states are expected to set their
own standards for proficiency (which they have done). According to
NCLB legislation, all students are expected to reach proficiency by
2014; this means that some state’s standards are not as rigorous as
others.

Figure 4.11 NAEP Score Equivalents of States’ Proficiency

Standards for Reading, Grade 4, 2005

ENGLISH AND STEFFY: BACKLOADING THE

CURRICULUM TO ENSURE COVERAGE OF STATE
TESTS—PURPOSE AND APPROACH

English and Steffy (2001) suggest a number of ways to align

curriculum and instruction to state tests. They suggest “frontloading”
the curriculum, which “refers to the practice of creating alignment by
physical creation of a curriculum on paper (p. 59), and aligning the
curriculum to the appropriate tests. This process follows three
phases: preparatory work, writing the curriculum, and piloting the
curriculum. Another way to align curriculum is by “backloading” or
“beginning the alignment process by working with publicly released
test items from the assessment tool” (English & Steffy, 2001, p. 60).
Backloading includes seven steps:

Backloading from public, randomly released test items

Deconstructing public, randomly released test items
Developing alternative test items
Identifying test item distractors
Examining test to textbook alignment
Determining written curriculum to test alignment
Anticipating where the test is moving (English & Steffy, 2001, pp.
98–110)

Findings

English and Steffy do not provide any research that has been
directly done to validate this process in schools or school systems.
They do quote the Price-Baugh study (1997) and the Moss-Mitchell
study (1998) as supporting their process. The English and Steffy
study is included here because the work has become so popular in
the field, although it focuses on only three sections of the alignment
matrix (tests, curriculum, and textbooks) and has no research base
for validating this process.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR STUDIES OF ALIGNMENT

OF STATE TESTS
Much of the research in this area focuses on the alignment between
state assessments and state standards. As the standards usually are
voluminous in comparison to the areas tested, practitioners need to
understand the relationship between what is encompassed in the
standards and what is actually tested. We also know that the
difficulty of state tests vary, so comparison of scores or levels of
achievement on state tests is difficult and also calls into question the
NCLB legislation that mandates that by 2014 all children need to
pass state assessments. There is little research cited in this chapter
linking state assessments to district assessments or district
instructional practices.

WHAT DISTRICTS CAN DO

#4–1

Lobby the state to provide adequate information on standards

and assessments.
Determining alignment between the state standards and the state
tests can be difficult because not all states provide the needed and
necessary information. For example, some states don’t publish test
specifications or blueprints. Others substitute released editions of
previous tests for test specifications. Some states insist that the
standards adequately specify what is on the test. In some states the
standards themselves are so general that almost anything might be
on the test. States become secretive to preserve the validity and
reliability of the test, particularly if the same test is designed to be
used year after year (see Popham, 2001, and Squires, 2005a, for
more in-depth discussion on the conundrum of standardized testing).
As we have previously noted, the standards may include most
everything of what students should be able to know and do, and the
standards are more comprehensive than the test. It is important for
school districts to know what is in the standards and how these are
tested (or not tested) on the state test, so districts can make
appropriate decisions about what they will teach.
What should states provide to local school districts? From work
across the country with many local districts that face this problem,
we have put together a list of what states should provide local
districts. Additional information has been added using the work of
Marca, Redfield, and Winter (2001) which suggested content match,
depth match, emphasis, performance match, accessibility, and
reporting as six areas to address with alignments of state standards
to state assessments. General considerations, not specific
procedures, for alignment were enumerated in this reference.
Content match is the alignment of the content of state standards to
the content of state assessment items. Depth match means aligning
the cognitive complexity, or the concept difficulty, between the
standards and the assessments. Emphasis means that the emphasis
in the assessment should match the emphasis in the standard.
Performance match means that the assessment results can be
mapped onto the performance levels intended. Accessibility means
that all students, even those with disabilities, are able to demonstrate
content mastery and that the assessment is free from bias.
Reporting means that the assessment reports should be aligned with
the standards. It is hoped that where states do not provide this
information, districts will lobby the state to improve the state’s
practice in these areas. Many of these suggestions are also listed in
Rabinowitz, Roeber, Schroeder, and Sheinker (2006). The following
list is given using information from the Connecticut State Department
of Education as an example.

A. Standards Lists
All states but one (Iowa) have lists of standards by subject area.
For reading/language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science
—areas that will eventually be tested because of NCLB requirements
—districts will want to compare the standards to the test
specifications. Figure 4.12 shows the standards for Connecticut.

B. Test Specifications
The state should provide local districts with a listing of the content
tested and the number of items associated with each content area.
This information should use the same titles as those used in the
standards.
The first thing to notice in Figure 4.13 is the titles of the tested
areas are not the same as the titles for the standards (see Figure
4.12). This means that the test specifications and the standards are
out of alignment.
Figure 4.12 Excerpt of Connecticut Standards for Math K–4

Figure 4.13 Connecticut Mathematics Grade 4 Test Blueprint

Further, it is not clear how the test specifications map (or are aligned
to) the standards, although reasonable guesses can be made.
Notice that the number of items is given for each area, with areas
not tested indicated. Also, the number of open-ended items is given
for specific areas, such as customary and metric measures. This
level of information does not happen in all states.
Further information is available that indicates the sub-areas for
each of the tested areas, allowing school districts to know
approximately what will be assessed.
Figure 4.14 Connecticut Mastery Test Grade 4 Mathematics
Content
 C. Sample Items for Each Area Tested
The sample items should be representative of how questions will
be asked and how the answers will be formatted.
Note that each area tested has representative sample items.
These sample items are important because they show how students
will be required to demonstrate their knowledge. For example, in
pictorial representation of numbers, we know from the sample item
that students will have to represent equivalence in decimal
nomenclature, given the equivalence of one section, and then apply
it to many. This may or may not be covered in textbook examples of
equivalence, yet students will need to be able to demonstrate their
pictorial representation of numbers (decimals) in this way. If students
are not given practice on this format, they may know the information
but may not be able to demonstrate it in this context.

D. Test Reports Should Give Data for Each Area Listed in

the Test Specifications
Figure 4.16 is a test report for Connecticut. The content strands
are listed in the first column with the criteria for mastery. The next
columns contain individual student scores. The content strands
should be consistent with the test specifications or blueprints. In this
case the test specifications and the report form have some
inconsistencies.
Some states give no feedback by strand, and they only give a
total score which then may be aggregated into four or five areas,
such as Advanced, At Goal, Proficient, Basic, and Below Basic.
Without scores reported by strand, there is no way to know what
needs to be improved. If states just report in the four or five areas,
their tests may not have enough items to ensure that they can validly
and reliably report on student performance by strand. This lack of
information for districts will hamper districts’ ability to change their
programs based on test results. Knowing that 20% of your students
scored in the below basic level is not the same as knowing that the
district or school was deficient in a skill such as estimating solutions
to problems. Some states still opt for this lack of information because
the test is cheaper to design and the reports are easier to produce.
Let’s hope districts will be successful in putting pressure on states to
produce tests that yield information that districts can use to improve
programs.

Figure 4.15 Grade 4 Sample Items for the Connecticut Mastery

Test
 Now that we have criteria for states to use in delivering information
about tests and standards, let’s look at the next strategies districts
can use to make sure they have accounted for alignment between
the test and other areas on the alignment matrix.

#4–2

Examine the alignment between the standards, the test

specifications, and the reports generated by the test.
 For districts, it is important to complete the “crosswalk” between
the standards, the test specifications, and the test report so the
district will know what is being assessed and can make the
necessary adjustments. Of course, the necessary adjustments will
depend on the curriculum design of the district’s curriculum. This
exercise might also be combined with strategy #2-4 [Provide
teachers with opportunities to refine the scope and sequence of
courses (especially for science lecture and lab activities), taking into
account problematic areas of standards.] so that the district can see
whether the practice provided by the textbook reinforces how the
item will be tested by the state. This then will examine the alignment
encompassing the standards, the test specifications or blueprints,
the test reports, and the practice provided in the textbooks.

Figure 4.16 Connecticut Mathematics Diagnostic Report for a

Sample Teacher

Pluses
 This will allow the group doing the analysis an in-depth
examination of the match between the standards and the state
assessment.

Other Considerations
For this information to be useful, it will need to be shared with
staff or with the committees in charge of developing subject area
curriculum. Both take time, resources, and staff development
planning.

#4–3

State professional organizations could replicate Webb’s study

using the WAT (Web Alignment Tool) and publish the results.
The full text of Webb’s study and the training manual (see
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/WAT/index.aspx) provide enough details
that a professional association or state education agency could
replicate the study. This would involve training a cadre of educators
to validly and reliably judge the alignment between the state test and
the state standards. Publication of the results would benefit all
districts in the state, because it would spare each having to do a
separate analysis of the alignment between the state test and the
state standards. Such a process could also yield information that
could improve the state’s standards and assessments. A national
entity like the Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development (ASCD), National School Boards, or the Council of
Chief State School Officers could develop a training program to
replicate Webb’s study in individual states. This would save each
state from translating Webb’s process for their individual state.

Pluses
Because Webb provides a validated way to examine the
alignment between standards and assessments, this would be a
 time-efficient way to access the alignment information for the
entire state, at relatively little cost depending on how it was
implemented.

Other Considerations
States and professional organizations may be unwilling or
unable to conduct such an alignment study.
The state may not want this information to be generally known
or made public because it may point to areas of the standards
where no alignment exists with the state test.

#4–4

School districts should require schools to use state testing

data to plan improvements.
Again, the power of this recommendation will depend on the
design of the curriculum or program in your school district. A school
district with no curriculum or program that is instead using textbooks
to structure the curriculum will have a different experience from one
that has designed assured performances that all students will be
challenged to demonstrate.
There are three ways to generate recommendations for
improvement using test data: bottom up, top down, and middle out.
The bottom up strategy starts with the teacher, then the school, and
then the district to synthesize recommendations at each level. The
top down strategy starts with district data, then moves to school
data, and finally works down to the teacher level. The middle out
strategy recognizes the importance of school-based staff
development and begins at the school level where goals are set on
the basis of testing data; then it progresses either down to the
individual teacher level or up through aggregating school data into
district recommendations. If there is consistency in the data across
the district, a top down approach may work the best. A bottom up
approach may be appropriate if there is great variation among
schools. The middle out approach could be used if the other two are
inappropriate.
Whatever strategy is used, each level produces a strengths and
needs analysis based on the report of test scores. Teachers then
examine the school-level report, meet as a group, and come to
consensus on the strengths and needs the data show in the report
(see Figure 4.17). Next, the strengths and needs are put together in
a staff development plan for the school that will show how the needs
will be addressed. Grade-level meetings and faculty meetings are
two times where this work can be accomplished without having to
use districtwide staff development days. Grade-level or course
teachers can be released for a half day through hiring substitutes
and cycling a number of grade-level or course teachers through this
cycle (see Figure 4.18).
If the textbook provides the basis for the program, teachers will
have more work to do because they will have to figure out when and
how a particular topic is taught. Then they will need to discuss their
own strengths and weaknesses on teaching the topic. Next, they will
come up with a plan for their own staff development. Finally, they can
use students’ results on next year’s tests as a way to evaluate
whether their staff development was successful. If students score
better, then the assumption can be made that the staff development
was a success.
If teachers have developed a curriculum where all teach
particular assured activities, then the previous work of generating
those activities makes easier work of analyzing scores and
generating staff development plans. For example, suppose that the
district reports show a weakness in a particular area. Representative
teachers from across the district meet and review the assured
activities that are used to teach this concept. Obviously, the scope
and sequence of the assured activities needs to be revised because
students aren’t performing well on the test. Some new assured
activities may be added, others modified or discarded. Then the
representative teachers share their consensus recommendations
with their schools. After modifications, a new scope and sequence of
assured activities are used during the next school year. Staff
development time is proposed for all who need a chance to practice
the new assured activities before they are actually used in the
classroom. Again, student performance on the state test in this
concept domain is the way the teachers evaluate their curriculum
and staff development efforts.
From this one example, it is clear that the design of curriculum in
the district will either facilitate a yearly rational response to high-
stakes test results or it will interfere with the effectiveness of
interventions.

Pluses
Testing information, including the district’s strengths and needs,
is fed back into staff and curriculum development, ensuring that
the following year’s plans are in sync with the most recent
testing data.
There is a systematic process for developing staff and
curriculum needs based on current testing data.

Figure 4.17 Strengths and Needs Work Sheet Based on State

Assessment Data
Copyright © 2009 by Corwin Press. All rights reserved. Reprinted from Curriculum
alignment: research-based strategies for increasing student achievement by David A.
Squires. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, www.corwinpress.com. Reproduction
authorized only for the local school site or nonprofit organization that has purchased this
book.

Figure 4.18 Strengths and Needs Analysis Leads to Staff

Development Planning Work Sheet
Copyright © 2009 by Corwin Press. All rights reserved. Reprinted from Curriculum
alignment: research-based strategies for increasing student achievement by David A.
Squires. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, www.corwinpress.com. Reproduction
authorized only for the local school site or nonprofit organization that has purchased this
book.

School improvement can be tied to the most recent testing data

while at the same time addressing the general needs of the
district.

Other Considerations
 Time and resources are needed to tackle this intervention.
Processes need to be developed and implemented that will
allow meeting the needs of both the district and the schools for
improvement.

#4–5

Set multiyear goals for district performance on state tests.

One school district, which will remain nameless, examined their
previous test scores and the improvement or lack of improvement
from year to year in order to determine areas that needed priority
considerations from a district perspective.
In the first column of Figure 4.19 are listed the tests (currently
given in Grades 4, 6, 8, and 10 for reading, writing, and math, and
given in Grade 10 for science). The second column shows the
percentage gain or loss using the year 2000 as a base and
examining the cumulative gain or loss over the last four years. The
third column shows where the school district is now, according to
their state report card. The fourth column says that all students will
need to reach 100% by 2014. By subtracting 100% needed by 2014
from the percentage of students currently meeting goal, the district
can establish the needed growth for the next ten years. For example,
in fourth-grade reading, the current percentage of students meeting
goal for the district is 68.3%. The growth needed in the next ten
years is 31.7% (100% needed in 2014 minus current percentage
meeting goal equals 31.7%). The next to the last column shows the
progress needed per year (3.2% more each year for the next ten
years to make goal for fourth-grade reading). The column “Avr.
yearly progress 2000–2004” shows the “% gain or loss 2000–2004”
from the first column divided by the three years of data represented.
For example, scores declined from 2000 to 2004 by 2.7%, resulting
in an average yearly progress of −9%. By comparing the trend (–9%)
with the needed improvement per year, based on the existing
performance (3.2%), we see in the last column that if current
progress continues, the district will not make its goal by 2014.
 Generally for the district as a whole, the most improvement
needed on a yearly basis is 4.4% more students scoring in the
proficient category or higher compared with the previous year. The
least amount of improvement needed is 1.6% improvement each
year. One hundred percent proficiency can be achieved if stretched
out over the long-term. But, as Figure 4.19 indicates, only about one-
third of the subjects at the various grade levels have made estimated
progress over the last three years of data (see the last column and
notice the + notations.) Although these differences present small
concerns now, as 2014 approaches their significance will grow.
Given that the data are based on past performance, the trends give
one indication if the district can meet the goal of 100% proficient in
the next decade.

Figure 4.19 Work Sheet for Computing Annual Progress Needed

to Meet the Needs of NCLB
NOTE: a. By 2014 we will fail in reading except for 10th grade.
b. By 2014 we will fail in writing except in 6th, 8th, and 10th grade.
c. By 2014 we will fail in math except in 6th grade.
d. By 2014 we will pass science in 10th grade.
e. By 2014 we will fail to get 100% pased all tests.

Therefore, by 2014 we will fail to make annual yearly progress and be declared a failing
school district by the state and federal government using the No Child Left Behind Law.

Pluses
The district has a systematic way to plan yearly for
improvements so that NCLB goals can be met over the long-
term.
 Other Considerations
Coordination of effort will be needed between the district and the
school so that district and school goals are mutually supporting.
Time and resources will be needed to systematize how the
analysis will be conducted by both district and school, conduct
the analysis, and use the data to develop school and district
improvement plans.

#4–6

Lobby the state to use Achieve’s Ten Criteria for Essential

Elements of a State’s Longitudinal Data System.
The ten criteria are:

1. A unique statewide student identifier.

2. Student-level enrollment, demographic, and program
participation information.
3. The ability to match individual students’ test records from year to
year to measure academic growth.
4. Information on untested students.
5. A teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to
students.
6. Student-level transcript information, including information on
courses completed and grades earned.
7. Student-level college readiness test scores.
8. Student-level graduation and dropout data.
9. The ability to match student records between the pre-K–12 and
postsecondary systems.
10. A state data audit system assessing data quality, validity, and
reliability. (Achieve,
http://www.achieve.org/dstore.nsf/Lookup/DQC_paper/$file/DQC
_paper.pdf, retrieved March 3, 2006)

Pluses
 Such standards for a state would make it possible to

follow students’ academic progress as they move from grade to

grade;
determine the value-added efficiencies of specific schools and
programs;
identify consistently high-performing schools so that educators
and the public can learn from best practices;
evaluate the effect of teacher preparation and training programs
on student achievement;
focus school systems on preparing a higher percentage of
students to succeed in rigorous high school courses, college,
and challenging jobs.

Given that it will take a few years to make such changes,

particularly at the state level, districts can begin to adopt data
structures that will allow them to use the information from state tests
and their own curriculum alignment strategies to structure data and
implement data-mining strategies that will provide partial answers to
questions of how to improve student achievement.

Other Considerations
States will be resistant to changing the way data is reported.
Data systems that meet these criteria are more expensive than
systems that don’t. Resources will be a continuing problem.

#4–7

Backload the curriculum: Align released test items with

curriculum and textbooks.
Using English and Steffy’s (2001) process, backload the
curriculum to ensure alignment of curriculum, state tests, and
textbooks.
Pluses

Backloading ensures a curriculum that covers the content of

state tests.

Other Considerations
Backloading the curriculum will narrow the curriculum to just the
content that is tested on a state’s tests. State tests assess a
rather narrow range of content when a complete list of
standards is considered; thus key concepts and processes may
be left out of the curriculum.
 Part II

Alignment and Mastery Learning, Project

2061, and TIMSS

In Part I we .reviewed individual studies that generally related one

facet of the alignment matrix to another, such as studies that related
instruction to curriculum-embedded tests. In Part II we will examine
research that deals with multiple areas of the alignment matrix at
once. For example, some of the research on mastery learning
encompasses instruction, curriculum-embedded assessments, and
standardized tests. The ideas are more complex because they
involve pieces of the alignment matrix which are interdependent. Yet
within this complexity there is power, as the research for the three
areas suggests achievement can be improved. Such research
suggests that a systematic approach to alignment may be the best
way to address alignment issues
 5
Alignment, Reteaching, and Mastery
Learning

A PERSONAL NOTE

You may well ask, “What is mastery learning, an instructional model

from the 1980s, doing in a contemporary book about alignment?”
The answer comes from my decade of experience implementing
mastery learning in a New Jersey school district and seeing
performance go from below grade level to above grade level on
standardized tests. The mastery learning model requires districts to
align their curriculum and instruction with curriculum-embedded tests
and standardized tests. Here are the details of my experience.
The district served mainly poor and minority students. When we
started mastery learning, there were very few examples out there to
learn from. My job as curriculum director in the district was to put the
mastery learning model in place with the assistance of all the
teachers and administrators. About seven years into the process, a
woman by the name of Kathleen Wishnick, did her dissertation on
the results in Red Bank, New Jersey. She compared results of unit
assessments with the results of the standardized test we were using
(this was before state tests had come along). She found that when
the unit tests were not aligned to the standardized test,
socioeconomic status, teacher, and gender largely predicted the
results on the standardized test. Much other research has been done
since that supports this finding. In some ways, this was what we
expected.
What was startling—and the reason this book is being written
today—is that when the unit tests were aligned to the standardized
tests, students’ socioeconomic status, teacher, and gender fell out of
the equation for predicting student achievement. This means that
these usually controlling variables had very little influence on the
results—that aligned instruction can overcome socioeconomic
status, teacher, and gender influences. This is huge! Student
achievement no longer needs to depend on factors like
socioeconomic status and gender. It really is possible to design an
instructional system where all children learn in spite of their
backgrounds or socioeconomic status.
The second reason I emphasize mastery learning is because of a
recent review of literature that I did for Edvantia in Charleston, West
Virginia, one of fourteen educational labs around the country funded
by the U.S. government (Squires, 2005c). The review looked at
research on students who received feedback during instruction, part
of the mastery learning model. Even I was impressed by the
consistency and the power of the results. Students that received
feedback did better on tests that were aligned with the instruction,
whether in a mastery learning model or another instructional
situation.
I think those messages are too powerful to ignore and they
reinforce the contention of this book that alignment is an important
element of districts’ curriculum development processes.

INTRODUCTION
Mastery learning, a powerful idea introduced in the 1970s, gained
attention of school districts around the country in the 1980s. This
model and its validation in laboratory settings was adopted and
applied in school settings with many successes (Block, Efthim, &
Burns,1989). In this chapter we examine the mastery learning model,
showing how it ties into alignment practices; investigate its
application and research validation in one school district; and then
pursue Cohen’s (1987) ideas that alignment may have been
responsible for the power of the mastery learning results. The
chapter ends with a number of practices for school districts that are
suggested by this part of the review of the alignment research.

BLOOM’S THEORY OF SCHOOL LEARNING—PURPOSE

AND APPROACH

Based in part on Carroll’s model (1963), Bloom (1976) provides a

testable theory of school learning. Bloom wanted to “determine a
small number of variables which will account for much of the
variation in school learning.” The quest to understand student
achievement continues today. Bloom proposed three interdependent
variables:

Cognitive Entry Behaviors: the extent to which the student has

already learned the basic prerequisites of the learning to be
accomplished
Affective Entry Characteristics: the extent to which the student is
(or can be) motivated to engage in the learning process
Quality of Instruction: the extent to which the instruction to be
given is appropriate to the learner (Bloom, 1976, pp. 10–11).

Instruction is defined by “learning tasks.” Quality of instruction,

incorporated in learning tasks, includes the extent to which the cues,
practice, and reinforcement of the learning are appropriate to the
needs of the learner. The entry characteristics and behaviors of
students along with quality of instruction yield three learning
outcomes: level and type of achievement, the rate of learning, and
affective outcomes.

Where the student entry characteristics and the quality of

instruction are favorable, then all the learning outcomes will
be at a high or positive level and there should be little
variation in the measures of the outcomes. Where there is
considerable variation among students in their entry
characteristics and where the quality of instruction is not
 optimal for the different students, there should be great
variation in the learning outcomes” (Bloom, 1976, pp. 11–12).

These ideas were revolutionary at the time, as Bloom believed

that a scope and sequence of learning tasks could be designed so
higher learning outcomes were ensured for all students, not just
some students. Quality of instruction could make up for deficits in
cognitive and affective entry behaviors of students and districts
control the quality of instruction.

Figure 5.1 Bloom’s Model of Instructional Quality

Bloom believed that modifications are possible in students’

prerequisites and motivations for learning and that modifications in
the quality of instruction could improve student outcomes.
Specifically, if instructional quality improves, student outcomes
improve. If student outcomes improve, then students are better
prepared cognitively and affectively for the next sequence of
instructional tasks. Bloom’s theory emphasized that the scope and
sequence of instructional tasks—the curriculum—will make a
difference in students’ performances. “The quality of instruction
students receive has a demonstrable effect on their achievement
and learning processes over one or more learning tasks” (Bloom,
1976, p. 171).
 Additionally, if students have appropriate prerequisite skills, any
developmentally appropriate learning task can be learned. This
implies that while family and socioeconomic status may initially
correlate with student entry behaviors and affective characteristics
and determine student outcomes to a great extent, the school can
design curriculum (a series of learning tasks) that can assist
students in mastering the curriculum, and thereby change over time
student entry behaviors and affective characteristics for subsequent
learning tasks. Put in today’s parlance, “All students can reach high
standards.” (See Gentile and Lalley, 2003, for a book-length
discussion of mastery learning and how it can be used to increase
student performance with standards.)
A critical step for quality instruction required providing a teach,
test, reteach, test model. Teachers would use the results of a
formative test to provide students who didn’t master the learning task
with more and different instruction. Then all students would validate
mastery after the reteaching time. By using the formative tests as the
criteria for providing additional instruction, teachers ensure that more
students master the learning task. As more students master the
previous learning tasks, more students are ready for the subsequent
learning tasks. And the subsequent learning tasks take less time
because more students have the appropriate prerequisite skills. (See
Squires, 2005c, for a review of relevant literature.) Bloom (1976)
validated this theory using different student populations, different
learning tasks, and different subject matter (see Arlin, 1973; Binor,
1974; Block, 1970; and Levin, 1975, for examples).

Findings

Based on his research, Bloom (1976) concluded that feedback

and corrective procedures account for 25% of the variation in student
learning. Although Bloom focused on individual students instead of
class-rooms, schools, or school systems, his theory suggests that
schools and classroom teachers who provide consistent feedback on
instruction to low performers could achieve better results.
 Indeed, in further reviews of mastery learning research, Block
(1971, 1974) and Block and Burns (1976) reviewed numerous
studies which indicated that mastery learning is successful at raising
achievement levels of approximately 80% of students to the high
levels now enjoyed by only 20% of students. In these reviews, effect
sizes ranged from .5 to over 1.5. Block et al. (1989) reviewed forty-
eight studies of mastery learning and concluded:

Mastery learning approaches seem to work comparatively

well almost all of the time. That is, they typically produce
effects that are greater than or equal to a non-mastery
approach. … Mastery learning approaches have
comparatively strong effects on general student achievement.
Assuming normality of scores, a median effect size of .76
[from the 48 studies] means that the typical application should
move the average 50th percentile student to about the 77th
percentile in achievement. (p. 28)

More reviews (Gentile & Lalley, 2003; Guskey & Pigott, 1988;
Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert-Drowns, 1990; Stallings and Stipek, 1986)
continued finding effects on achievement and also effects on
teachers’ attitudes and perceptions of students, increased retention
of learned information, and students’ perceptions of confidence in
their own abilities.
The research we’ve just discussed demonstrates that the theory
behind the model could be successfully applied in schools and
school districts. But districts and schools who adopted Bloom’s
model generally had to change the structure of curriculum, the
delivery of instruction, and the function of the assessment system in
order to get these results—no small task. Let’s examine the
implications.
Gentile and Lalley (2003) provide a description of three common
elements of any mastery learning system:

1. Explicit instructional objectives, hierarchically sequenced, which

students are expected to obtain [curriculum structure]
 2. Criterion-referenced assessment to evaluate and provide
feedback on the achievement of those objectives [assessment
system]
3. Remedial instruction for students who did not achieve the
desired standard of performance [instructional delivery] (p. 156)

Based on these characteristics, districts would generally need to

make the following changes. The first two common elements—a
scope and sequence of instructional objectives and a criterion-
referenced assessment system—must be determined on a
districtwide basis in order for instruction to make sense across years
between grade levels or courses, when students usually change
teachers. Most school districts do not have these elements in place,
so implementing a mastery learning philosophy means developing
districtwide instructional objectives and a criterion- referenced
assessment system.
In addition, the scope and sequence and the assessment system
would need to be aligned to state standards and assessments in
such a way that the district is assured instruction covers the topics in
the standards and state assessments.
The Bloom model was based on a series of learning tasks, and
success on those learning tasks were prerequisite to other learning
tasks. The district or school would need to specify the learning tasks
and make sure all students had the opportunity to learn those tasks
(based on a scope and sequence of objectives). Remember, back in
the 1980s most districts used textbooks for their curriculum, there
were no standards, and no required testing or reporting of test
results. So specifying the learning tasks associated with a scope and
sequence of objectives (a curriculum), and requiring all students to
have access to those tasks (which required all teachers to teach
those tasks), would drastically change the instructional practices of
these districts.
Further, the power of mastery learning resided in teachers
providing feedback to students after testing, reteaching students who
did not meet mastery, and providing enrichment for those who
initially mastered the material. In today’s language, we would talk
about differentiating instruction. Again, large changes were
necessary to implement the model, just as large changes are
needed today to implement differentiated instruction. Teachers had
to take more time with each task, because they had to reteach after
the task for those students who didn’t master. More time on current
tasks meant less time for future tasks, so teachers couldn’t cover the
same number of tasks as they might have before. Formative
assessments needed to be standardized within districts, so all
students took the same formative assessment, posing difficulties in
school cultures were every teacher developed and used their own
assessments. Teachers needed to develop different ways of
teaching the learning task for those who didn’t pass the formative
assessment, running counter to some existing beliefs that “My job is
to teach, assess, and tell students how well they did. Students
should pass tests the first time; I don’t coddle kids with second
chances,” or, “I have always taught this way in the past, and kids got
it. Now I am required to figure out different ways to reteach.” These
changes all would require staff development so teachers had the
skills and attitudes to fully implement mastery learning.
The laboratory studies that Bloom conducted validated the theory
based on individual classrooms of students, but neglected to
anticipate the large changes needed in the existing culture of
schools and districts to actually implement the process. What the
Bloom model showed us is that when curriculum, instruction, and
lesson planning are aligned with curriculum-embedded tests (and
there is a teach, test, reteach, test model in place), student results
can improve dramatically in the laboratory and in schools and school
districts that implement the model well (see Levine and associates,
1985, for an example).
This work is placed on the alignment matrix to indicate that
Bloom’s work demonstrates that when instruction is aligned with
curriculum-embedded tests (and students have the opportunity for
reteaching on the test’s content), student outcomes tend to improve.

Figure 5.2 The Alignment Matrix—Mastery Learning

 The alignment matrix for mastery learning centers around the
alignment of curriculum-embedded tests to the written and taught
curriculum. This is the first look at a system of curriculum that has
been shown to improve student results.
Bloom’s theory of instructional quality implies that the school
controls factors that affect student outcomes; outcomes are not
predetermined by race, culture, or socioeconomic status, but are
under the control of the school. Cohen’s (1987) and Wishnick’s
(1989) work is also placed on the alignment matrix; we will explore
their research next.

COHEN: INSTRUCTIONAL ALIGNMENT—PURPOSE AND

APPROACH
Cohen’s (1987) emphasis was similar to Bloom’s in that Cohen’s
work demonstrated the power of alignment between instruction and
the content of curriculum-embedded tests; Cohen coined it
“instructional alignment” and focused his studies specifically on the
alignment aspects. Bloom’s theory, on the other hand, focused on
instruction after formative testing. Central to Cohen’s ideas is that
“Lack of excellence in American schools is not caused by ineffective
teaching, but mostly by misaligning what teachers teach, what they
intend to teach, and what they assess as having been taught”
(Cohen, 1987, p. 18). To buttress the case, Cohen and his graduate
students found that misalignment of instruction to testing caused
low-aptitude students to fail, while high-aptitude students succeeded.

Findings

When instruction and assessment were aligned during sample

lessons, both low- and high-aptitude students scored well on
curriculum-embedded tests. Generally, alignment was more
important for low-aptitude students than for high-aptitude students,
with low-aptitude students making greater gains when alignment is
present. When instruction aligns with assessment, large gains over a
control group (instruction with no alignment) appeared across
studies, with effect sizes ranging around four times what traditional
instruction produced (effect sizes ranging from .25 to .50) or for
instructionally aligned instruction and assessment, effect sizes of 1
to 2, meaning that a student scoring at a 50 percentile would
increase to between 84 and 98 percentile (Cohen & Stover, 1981;
Elia, 1986; Fahey, 1986; Kozar, 1984; Tallarico, 1984). This research
promised better student results if instruction aligned practice with
test items as well as the concepts the items tested, particularly for
low-aptitude students.

THE WISHNICK STUDY: ALIGNMENT IS MORE

IMPORTANT THAN SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS IN
PREDICTING ACHIEVEMENT—PURPOSE AND
APPROACH
Wishnick (1989), a student of Cohen’s, examined the effect of
alignment between curriculum-embedded tests in fourth-grade
reading units and a standardized test in Red Bank, New Jersey. Red
Bank Public Schools implemented a mastery learning curriculum that
had produced improved achievement on standardized tests (Squires,
1986). Wishnick (1989) states the purpose of her study:

In a mastery learning curriculum, how much of the variance in

norm referenced standardized achievement test (NRST)
scores is explained by: (1) gender; (2) socioeconomic status
(SES); (3) teacher effect; (4) scores on locally developed
criterion referenced tests (CRTs) purporting to measure the
same skills as what is measured on commercially published
normed referenced standardized tests (NRSTs). … The
study’s proposed to investigate the power of instructional
alignment compared to the power of demographics that have
usually explained significant amounts of NRST scores
variance.” (pp. 1, 3)

Wishnick concludes by saying, “The study compared the relative

potencies of instructional methods with demographic factors” (p. 4).
A preponderance of the research has established strong links
between a student’s socioeconomic status, teacher effect, and
gender as predictors of success on norm referenced standardized
tests. If the curriculum and assessments are aligned, will this
correlation still hold true?
To conduct the study, Wishnick obtained a number of materials
and records from Red Bank Public Schools: copies of the curriculum
for fourth-grade reading, copies of the criterion referenced tests for
each reading unit designed by the district’s fourth-grade teachers,
logs of students scores on those criterion referenced tests, individual
student raw scores for the standardized test along with the copy of
the test and testing material, and a record of whether students
received free or reduced lunch (an indicator of poverty level).
Wishnick developed and validated an Alignment Measurement
Scale (AMS) (See Figure 5.3) that quantified the degree of
instructional alignment between the CRT (Criterion Referenced Test)
and NRST (Norm Referenced Standardized Test) item clusters. The
AMS measured the alignment of the CRT (embedded in the
instructional process) with the NRST given near the end of the year.
Wishnick identified seventeen critical features that contribute to
alignment and converted these into seven subscales. Each subscale
could be assigned a range of five values: 4=Positive Misalignment,
meaning that the CRT was more difficult than the NRST; 3=Perfect
Alignment; 2=Satisfactory Alignment; 1=Poorly Aligned; and
0=Misalignment.
Each item on the scale has a particular meaning that needs to be
understood by the person rating the alignment between the CRT and
the NRST. The AMS was applied to item clusters for the CRT and
the NRST. Item clusters for both the CRT and NRST were generated
based on concept similarity (were the concepts tested similar?)
combined with the way the concepts were tested (for example, were
the predicting outcomes items phrased positively with the word could
in the stem?). Item clusters from the CRT and NRST were then
aligned, if similar, and excluded from further analysis if there was no
alignment. These clusters were then rated using the AMS instrument
after establishing inter-rater reliability and validity of the instrument.
The AMS ratings and information about gender, socioeconomic
status, and teacher were analyzed. (The analysis was complex and
beyond the scope easily reported in a small space here.)

Figure 5.3 Wishnick’s Alignment Measurement Scale

SOURCE: Wishnick, K. T. (1989). Relative effects on achievements scores of SES, gender,
teacher effect and instructional alignment: A study of alignment’s power in mastery learning.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco, CA. © 1989 K. T. Wishnick.
Reprinted with permission.
NOTE: *These critical features are only measured when generating an AMS score for an
entire test. Do not measure these critical features when measuring alignment of individual
items.

Findings

The findings, in a nutshell, are that alignment is more powerful in

predicting student achievement than socioeconomic status, gender,
or teacher—a stunning finding, given the vast majority of research
that shows a strong connection, for example, between
socioeconomic status and performance. Here are the findings in
more detail; many have been directly quoted or paraphrased from
the dissertation.

Correlations between the CRT and the NRST scores of students

were compared with the alignment scores on the AMS. The
higher the alignment score on the AMS, the greater the
correlations between the CRT and the NRST. Good alignment
then tends to reduce the variability of student scores. Poor
alignment increases the variability in student scores. (Wishnick,
1989, pp. 135–137)
Socioeconomic status accounted for only 1% of the NRST
performance variance. This means that whether a student
received free or reduced lunch had almost nothing to do with
how well he or she scored on the NRST. Most research studies
have found that students’ socioeconomic status is predictive of
how well they score on standardized tests. This finding shows
that aligned instruction and assessment washes out
socioeconomic status as a predictor of achievement. (Wishnick,
1989, pp. 139–141)
Gender and teacher also accounted for little of the variance in
student scores. In other studies the reverse was true. Reading
scores for females are generally higher than males at fourth
grade. Teachers produce different results, but in this study it did
not matter what teacher was assigned to a student; the chances
of scoring high were approximately equal across classes
studied. Wishnick, 1989, pp. 141–142)
Taken as a whole, the higher the degree of instructional
alignment between the CRT and the NRST, the less effect
demographic variables, gender, socioeconomic status, and
teacher had on NRST performance. (Wishnick, 1989, p. 144)
The lower the degree of instructional alignment between the
CRT and NRST item cluster, the higher the degree of influence
of demographic variables on NRST performance. (Wishnick,
1989, pp.144–45)
The alignment effect is more powerful for low achievers than for
high achievers. Low achievers do better when the instructional
 outcomes are clear and instruction is congruent with
postinstructional assessment. (Wishnick, 1989, p. 158)
The CRT was the best predictor of scores on the NRST, better
than gender, socioeconomic status, and teacher effect.
(Wishnick, 1989, p. 147)
The power of instruction as measured by the CRT accounted for
40.32% of NRST performance variance, and the alignment
effect accounted for 36.72% of NRST performance variance.
Taken as a whole, other variables (i.e., gender, teacher effect,
and socioeconomic status) accounted for 3% of NRST
performance variance. (Wishnick, 1989, p. 154)
Socioeconomic status is a potent factor in school performance
when instruction is generated from a model of education that
assumes a normal distribution of scholastic performance. But
when the educational model assumes that all students can
demonstrate mastery, and when instruction is aligned, students
perform well on competency tests and socioeconomic status
loses its effect on school performance. Competency-based
criterion referenced instruction is more potent than
socioeconomic status. (Wishnick, 1989, pp.164–166)
This study found no evidence to support previous research that
teachers interact differently with these fourth-grade students.
The simple correlation between teacher and total NRST
performance approached zero … the lack of teacher effect is the
teacher effect in this mastery learning design. (Wishnick, 1989,
pp. 167–170)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR STUDIES OF MASTERY

LEARNING
These studies point out the importance of feedback during
instruction. In mastery learning this feedback is formally incorporated
into the instructional model as the student is retaught using a
different approach. In order to have systematic feedback like this, the
following need to be in place:
 A scope and sequence of key instructional assessment
opportunities
A standard way of assessing instructional performance
An alternative way of teaching for those students who don’t
initially pass the assessment

This provides the beginning of the criteria for a curriculum

structure that can produce results.
Alignment, as Wishnick’s study pointed out, is important in
crafting assessments where there needs to be alignment along
various dimensions (defined by the Alignment Management Scale).
When alignment is present between curriculum-embedded
assessments and state or standardized assessments, traditional
variables such as race, socioeconomic status, and teacher
assignment fall out of the equation for student performance. This
chapter demonstrates that it is possible to design a curriculum that
has powerful effects on student performance, negating effects of
race, socioeconomic status, and teacher assignment.

WHAT DISTRICTS CAN DO

We discussed some of the difficulties in implementing mastery
learning:

Linking learning tasks (that all students are expected to master)

with a scope and sequence aligned to standards
Developing and providing a criterion-referenced assessment
structure including formative and summative assessments
Providing feedback and reteaching after formative tests as
standard operating procedure for a district’s teachers

Those difficulties, however, point to things districts might change,

given the strength of the research.

#5–1
 Implement a mastery learning model districtwide.
This requires a district to develop and use learning tasks that will
be the foundation for instruction. For each unit composed of learning
tasks, the district needs to develop an assessment system in which
each unit has a formative and summative assessment that tests the
content and objectives covered in that unit. The district’s instructional
model needs to encompass a teach, test, reteach, test model with
the accompanying staff development for all teaching staff. Gentile
and Lalley (2003) suggest another requirement: “Enrichment
activities and a corresponding grading scheme to go beyond initial
mastery of essentials to higher-order thinking with application of their
newly acquired knowledge and skills” (p. 156). Such a systematic
approach may be necessary because in the existing model of
instruction and assessment (teach, test), students don’t receive
appropriate feedback that ensures mastery of specified learning
tasks.

Pluses

This is a systematic, research-based, field-tested approach that

encompasses many of the key components needed to raise
student achievement.
Mastery learning has been proven to produce dramatic
increases in student achievement in the real world of school
districts.

Other Considerations

There needs to be a large commitment of staff development and

program development time to be ready for implementation.
It is a long time before results can be garnered, during which
staff and program development are taking place.
Many changes will need to be made in the practices of most
school districts around linking objectives with learning tasks that
all students use, developing formative and summative
 assessments, and implementing an instructional model that
involves reteaching in all classrooms.

Other, less systematic approaches follow.

#5–2

Develop standard ways to periodically assess and reteach

students.
One component of mastery learning is a standardized
assessment system. Districts can provide an assessment system to
help generate data that can be used in the district’s data-use efforts.
Some districts have developed quarterly assessments or
assessments at the end of semesters, and in other districts,
particularly in secondary schools, a final examination system is in
place, in which all students taking particular courses take the same
final exam. These assessments may be aligned to the format of the
state tests and mirror the content of the state exams.

Pluses

Assessment drives instruction, so providing a standard

assessment at specific time intervals may create the institutional
press to help teachers align more of their activities (learning
tasks) to the content and format of the high-stakes tests.
Students receive practice on an assessment that is aligned with
the state test.
This strategy is relatively easy to add on, as it requires minimal
loss of instructional time and can be developed at the central
office.
This strategy creates assessment data, so the results can be
fed back into the system to improve curriculum, instruction, and
assessment.

Other Considerations
 This emphasizes the standardized test too much.
The test may not be aligned to what is taught during that time
period in the district, an example of not aligning the assessment
with the curriculum.
The district-developed test may have been developed without
formal and public test specifications, presenting teachers and
students with another mystery test.
Alignment may be imprecise, based on sample test items rather
than on the test specifications themselves.
This does not ensure that the data will be fed back so that
instruction and curriculum can actually be improved, as the
district may not have any way of knowing what should be taught
in particular courses or grade levels.

#5–3

Provide feedback to students on a regular basis while

providing iterative ways for students to demonstrate
competence on learning tasks.
The research on mastery learning shows that when students
receive feedback and different instructional strategies when they are
not mastering a learning task, their performance improves
dramatically. This improvement prepares them to better perform on
subsequent tasks, because they have had the opportunity to master
the subsequent task’s prerequisite skills. Using a teach, test,
reteach, test instructional model is a staff development effort that
could be implemented over the course of a year or two. Coverage
expectations would need to be modified so that the extra time
needed to complete reteaching would be available, although the
research suggests that time needed at the beginning of a course for
attention to students not making the grade will be made up later as
all students master a course’s prerequisite skills.

Pluses
 This strategy provides structure for differentiating instruction
after the formative test.
Students can receive feedback and be taught in a different way,
resulting in more students mastering the learning tasks.
Everyone must demonstrate competence in regrouping based
on data.
Students have more time to demonstrate competence on
important fundamentals.
Compliance can be easily documented in teachers’ lesson
plans.

Other Considerations

Without standard assessments, teachers will use personal

criteria to determine the need for reteaching.
Modifying coverage expectations without a curriculum will be
problematic.
Without the support of grade-level or course-level teams and
administrative oversight, this may be just another flash-in-
thepan inservice. Districts without the infrastructure to provide
follow-up coaching and problem solving will be hard pressed to
maintain the model.
 6
Ideas From Project 2061 of the American
Association for the Advancement of
Science

In Chapter 3, we covered the science and math textbook analysis

process and results of Project 2061 of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science (AAAS). This chapter covers their work
on implementing science standards through curriculum and staff
development, one way to merge many of the research-based
strategies and capture the power of alignment to affect student
achievement.
Project 2061 proposes that many areas of education need to be
changed if standards and their assessments are to have an effect.
Rather than using a research-based argument in which experimental
and control group results are compared, Project 2061 uses a logical
and rational analysis of problems confronting [science] education
and details strategies for fixing problems over the long-term, hence
the project’s title “Project 2061,” the date when Halley’s comet will
return to Earth’s proximity. Many of the initiative’s systematic
recommendations involve the alignment of standards, curriculum,
instruction, and assessments.
In this chapter we will examine the tools that Project 2061 uses:

Science for All Americans (1989) is a description of what

students should know in order to be scientifically literate by the
end of their high school education.
Benchmarks for Science Literacy (1993) uses the results of
Science for All Americans to develop grade-level (K–2, 3–5, 6–
8, and 9–12) bands of what students should know and be able
 to do if they are scientifically literate. Benchmarks coordinates
with the work of Science for All Americans.
Atlas of Science Literacy Volume 1 (2001) and Atlas of Science
Literacy Volume 2 (2007) use the benchmarks to map the
clusters and the relationships among clusters across grade
levels. This allows viewers to see the connections within and
between grade-level bands as well as the prerequisites for a
given idea or standard. This unique tool is useful in designing
curriculum and instruction because it maps the interconnections
of ideas of a scientifically literate person.
Designs for Science Literacy (2001) explains how to use the
three tools mentioned above with curriculum development
processes. The processes explained in Designs are
summarized here. This summary is one of the few in-depth
discussions of how to use standards and standards-based tools
to develop an aligned curriculum.

The National Research Council also wrote a set of standards for

science, called National Science Education Standards: Observe,
Interact, Change, Learn (1996). We’ll look at the AAAS standards,
however, because they discuss and focus on curriculum
development and alignment.

AAAS PROJECT 2061—PURPOSE AND APPROACH

First, let’s examine the three tools in the tool kit. Although science is
the content area and it has close connections to mathematics,
technology, and the social sciences, the processes could be used
with any subject area, because most of these tools exist in national
and state work on standards in other areas.
Science for All Americans (1989) defines what scientific literacy
should be by the end of high school:

The desire for science literacy for all citizens led to the
general goal that all students should be well educated in
 science, mathematics, and technology by the time they leave
their common schooling. This in turn led to agreement on five
criteria for identifying specific learning goals in science,
mathematics, and technology: utility, social responsibility,
intrinsic value of knowledge, philosophical value and
childhood enrichment. Based on these criteria, Science for All
Americans recommends 65 major learning goals to be
reached by all students by the time they graduate from high
school. (Science for All Americans, p. 50)

Figure 6.1 shows the titles of the sixty-five major learning goals.
These learning goals can also be thought of as K–12 standards for
science education. Local teachers and administrators will find this a
useful tool as Science for All Americans (1989) provides the big
picture of where science education should aim. Later we will
describe how this tool can be used as part of staff development in
curriculum planning. The drawback of this document is that it doesn’t
specify at what grade levels topics should be taught. Benchmarks for
Science Literacy fills this gap.
Benchmarks for Science Literacy (1993) sequenced the K–12
goals for science literacy with benchmarks as the instructional focus
of a range of grade levels (K–2, 3–5, 6–8, and 9–12). So, in Figure
6.1, topics are sequenced within a section; the topic “uncertainty”
has eleven goals that are characteristic of a scientifically literate
person beginning with understanding the topic “sources of
uncertainty.” The next column above shows how the benchmarks
sequence the topics through grade-level bands of K–2, 3–5, 6–8,
and 9–12. Local curriculum developers can use the benchmarks to
help develop a scope and sequence for their science curriculum. For
example, all of the K–2 benchmarks could be divided into those
appropriate for each grade level. Then the local curriculum
developers could develop units and activities to address each of the
benchmarks. Later, we will see how the benchmarks can be used to
eliminate unnecessary topics and vocabulary.
The Atlas of Science Literacy (2001, 2007) shows the
relationship of the benchmarks to each other and to other topic areas
through strand maps. Figure 6.2 is a strand map of gravity.
Benchmarks have boxes around the learning goal with their
benchmark code included. On the left-hand side are the grade-level
bands for the benchmarks. The arrows between learning goal boxes
“indicate that understanding one idea contributes to understanding
the other, either logically or psychologically” (Designs for Science
Literacy, 2001, p. 184) At the bottom of the chart are other topics or
“story lines” that relate to an understanding of gravity (i.e. changing
motion, relative motion, and orbits.) Local curriculum developers can
use the atlas and the strand maps to refine a scope and sequence.
For example, the two benchmarks about Earth’s gravity and
changing motion at grades K–2 will need to be covered before the
topics at Grades 3–5 can be introduced successfully to ensure that
students have the appropriate prerequisite skills. (Remember
Bloom’s theory?) The maps will also help local curriculum
developers understand the interrelationships among topics, such as
the interrelationships between Earth’s gravity and changing motion
or relative motion. The maps do not specify one way or a best way to
cover the topics, but they do tell local curriculum developers which
major ideas students need to understand before tackling other ideas.

Figure 6.1 Organization of Science for All Americans and

Benchmarks for Science Literacy
 The alignment matrix in Figure 6.3 shows the areas addressed by
AAAS’s materials and processes.

Figure 6.2 Project 2061 Strand Map

Figure 6.3 The Alignment Matrix—Project 2061
 The alignment matrix reveals that Project 2061 was interested in
the alignments between curriculum, curriculum-embedded tests,
standards, and instruction. While the subjects are limited to
mathematics and science, and while the authors offer no research
validation for their recommendations, Project 2061 has been
included in this book because of its systematic discussion of what
districts can do to align their curriculum for improving achievement.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR PROJECT 2061

Alignment is one avenue by which to approach curriculum

development. Curriculum alignment is only possible if a curriculum
has been created. This chapter demonstrates that alignment can be
a useful tool when embedded into a curriculum development
process. In the next chapter we summarize the research by Schmidt
et al. (2001) around a portion of the TIMMS that shows how
curriculum affects achievement. The beginning of Part III describes
one way of developing curriculum that recognizes the importance of
aligning curriculum, standards, and assessments to curriculum and
staff development processes that has produced dramatically
improved results where development and implementation have been
ensured. But first, here are some suggestions of how to use
alignment to foster good curriculum development.

WHAT DISTRICTS CAN DO

AAAS outlines four areas where school districts can build
professional capability for undertaking curriculum change:

1. How teachers acquire knowledge and skills regarding science

itself
2. How science is represented in literacy goals or the standards
3. How students learn challenging ideas
4. How materials for instruction and assessment serve students’
learning (Designs for Science Literacy, 2001, p 179)

AAAS has published a CD-ROM entitled Resources for Science

Literacy: Professional Development which provides workshop
outlines, lists of science trade books that address the content of
Science for All Americans (1989), and summaries of cognitive
research on how students learn challenging science ideas. This tool
can help “teachers to acquire knowledge and skills regarding science
itself.”

#6–1

Clarify benchmarks.
Just having standards (what students should know and be able to
do), such as Science for All Americans (1989) and Benchmarks for
Science Literacy (1993), means that what is most important for
students to learn has already been decided. States have used these
national standards to inform the development of state standards.
One staff development activity would be to compare the Benchmarks
for Science Literacy to state standards for science, understanding
that each state and national standards document has its own unique
point of view. Understanding the similarities and differences among
the documents is important. Having teachers clarify benchmarks
(standards) is the first step in understanding how the pieces fit into
the whole of science literacy. The five activities suggested in Figure
6.4 are listed in no particular order.

Figure 6.4 Using Project 2061 Tools to Clarify a Benchmark

#6–2
 Unburden the curriculum.
The goal of a national standards document, such as Science for
All Americans, is twofold:

To specify what students should know and be able to do

To leave out content and ideas of lesser importance

This helps to reduce “excessive inclusiveness” with long lists of

topics and vocabulary that need to be addressed in instruction. For
example, a topic such as cells can imply a huge number of concepts
and vocabulary. The Benchmarks of Science Literacy (1993) state:

Information transfer and energy transformation are functions

of nearly all cells. The molecular aspects of these processes
should wait until students have observed the transformation of
energy in a variety of physical systems and have examined
more generally the requirements for the transfer of
information. (p. 110)

So, the Benchmarks make the following recommendation for

teaching about cells for Grades 9–12:

The idea that protein molecules assembled by cells conduct

the work that goes on inside and outside the cells in an
organism can be learned without going into the biochemical
details. (p. 112)

Biology and life science teachers at the high-school level then will
want to examine their courses to determine if they are teaching more
than is necessary according to the Benchmarks. If they are, they
may want to reduce the depth of coverage so that other topic areas
can be addressed and the connections between areas can be
strengthened. Standards do provide what should be covered, but
they also hold the key to understanding and reducing the scope of
the curriculum, which according to the TIMMS is “a mile wide and an
inch deep.” Of course, this applies to not only science but to other
subject areas and standards as well. Teachers will want to clarify
how individual benchmarks (standards) fit into the whole, clarifying
what is necessary and what makes the instruction too detailed.

#6–3

Cut major topics.

Figure 6.5 shows an analysis of the ideas included in traditional
textbook series and the number of ideas that are omitted in the
Benchmarks, as they were deemed not essential to producing
scientifically literate students.

Figure 6.5 Benchmark Ideas Included in Traditional Science

Curriculum

A typical biology textbook covers nearly 1,100 ideas and a typical

school year is 180 days long. Covering all the ideas in a biology
textbook would require a teacher to cover more than five ideas a day
for 180 days, an impossible requirement. Unburdening the
curriculum is necessary, and the Benchmarks assist teachers in
pruning the curriculum. The following is a suggested procedure for
teacher groups to develop a consensus on the topics needing
elimination from the curriculum.

1. Discuss the distinction between (1) “topics” as categories of

goals for what students will end up knowing or being able to do,
 and (2) “topics” as contexts for learning, rather than content to
be learned. (They could consider just not using the word “topic”
for one or the other of those meanings, but the word is so firmly
embedded in education discourse that it is best to wrestle with it
for a while.)
2. Begin with a list of topics in the current curriculum (often
textbooks can serve as proxies for the curriculum) and indicate
whether there are learning goals in Benchmarks that match. The
various teams in the district can share and compare lists.
3. As the number of items on the lists grows, begin to make a
master list of topics to be considered for elimination from the
core. The criteria for making such judgments would, of course,
have to take into account any pertinent district or state
requirements.
4. From the list of candidate topics for elimination, each team
member selects one topic to drop and identifies a core topic in
which to invest the additional time made available.
5. Each team member evaluates the effect of dropping one topic
and spending more time on another. It may be useful to consult
with teachers in later grades about their expectations for what
their students should already have learned. (Since those
teachers too are struggling with the importance of topics, their
advice is desirable but not definitive.) In each instance, after full
discussion, the faculty team decides whether to recommend that
other teachers in the district also drop the topic in question from
the basic science and mathematics core. (Designs for Science
Literacy, 2001, p. 217)

Figure 6.6 Traditional Topics to Consider Excluding F rom Literacy

Core
 This process could be accomplished in other subject areas. Figure
6.6 lists some traditional topics to consider excluding from the
curriculum.
Designs for Science Literacy also contains numerous lists of
subtopics in algebra, geometry, biology, earth science, and physical
science to consider for pruning.

#6–4

Trim technical vocabulary.

Yager (1983) reported vocabulary loads ranging from 2,173
words for a physical science textbook to over 17,130 words for a
biology textbook. Groves (1995) followed-up this study, confirming
that “the amount of vocabulary load presented is still too high and
may contribute to the problem of science avoidance by secondary
students” (p. 213) while finding less of a vocabulary load using a
revised procedure. Such research suggests a need to systematically
reduce vocabulary load.
Designs for Science Literacy suggests the following process:

Faculty teams can be set up to look for topics that seem to be

over-burdened with technical language and recommend which
terms can reasonably be avoided. As suggested in the box on
the opposite page, a list of topics can be considered to
include three categories:

1. the concept and the technical term for the concept are both
recommended for basic science literacy;
2. the concept is recommended, but not the technical term;
3. neither the concept nor technical term is recommended. As the
faculty teams study the terminology associated with a topic, they
can question the judgment expressed in the list and modify it if
they wish, but only after discussion and then only if persuasive
arguments for including the technical terms are made.

The burden is on having to show why technical words that go

beyond what is needed for science literacy should be
included, not on having to argue for their exclusion. (p. 133)

#6–5

Reduce wasteful repetition.

When developing or revising a curriculum, teachers will want to
eliminate unnecessary repetition of topics and concepts, while
understanding that some repetition is beneficial.

1. Cross-grade teacher teams should conduct an informal survey

to see which topics appear to be frequently repeated in the K–
12 curriculum.
2. Choosing from the resulting list of topics likely to have excess
redundancy, the teams should analyze one for which a growth-
 of-understanding map exists. By comparing entries on the map
to the profile of the topic given in the district curriculum, the
team can locate differences.
3. By studying these differences, the team can think through just
what component ideas may be learned and when, with what
level of understanding, and with what means to demonstrate
that understanding.

Note that this recommendation is for a collaborative

investigation of what it takes for students to learn, not for high-
school teachers to instruct middle-school teachers, nor for
middle-school teacher to instruct elementary-school teachers,
in what they should accomplish with students. (Designs for
Science Literacy, 2001, pp. 234–235)

#6–6

Learn to analyze curriculum materials.

Once the benchmarks are clarified and teachers understand
them deeply, then teachers can turn to an analysis of curriculum
materials. The focus here is “Do the curriculum materials actually
help students to achieve the benchmarks in a powerful way?”
(Designs for Science Literacy, 2001, p. 193). This assumes that a
curriculum has been developed that is aligned to the benchmarks or
the state standards. If a curriculum has been developed, then
curriculum materials can be analyzed and evaluated based on
whether they help to meet the goals. Returning to our cell example, if
the biology text presented the biochemical details of the protein
molecules in the cells while giving little attention to the more general
work that goes on within and without these cells, then new material
will need to be found so that the curriculum material can be in
balance with the stated aims of the curriculum. Too often, teachers
assume that if topics are included in the textbook, they should be
taught to students. Learning to analyze curriculum materials, such as
textbooks, given the framework of the benchmarks or standards is
important in the continuing effort to unburden the curriculum.
(Chapter 3 provides more details about how to examine textbooks.)

#6–7

Align assessment to curriculum.

After developing a curriculum, the next step is to create
assessments. To be fair, assessments need to be aligned with the
goals and content of the curriculum. Teachers need to ask whether
the assessment actually indicates whether a student individually, or
students as a group, have mastered the goals and content of the
curriculum.
In fact, assessment provides only sample performances of how a
goal might be met, with the assessor making the inference that good
performance on the assessment means that the student has
mastered the complete goal, as shown in Figure 6.7.

Figure 6.7 Inferences Based on Assessments

Teachers need to consider the alignment of the content domain

with the domain covered within the curriculum. Then teachers need
to wrestle with whether the sample performances adequately align to
and represent the domain. Lastly, teachers need to decide whether
the following inference is true: students have indeed adequately
learned the content of the domain if they performed well on the
sample performance. Underlying all this is the question, What does
“mastery” mean at this stage of a student’s development?
Documents like Science for All Americans and Benchmarks can help
to specify the domains so that sample performances can be
appropriately developed. Other standards from other subject areas
can perform a similar function.
Alignment of assessment also needs to address how data from
the assessment are used to monitor curriculum. Districts need to
build assessment systems that

1. Assess individual students;

2. Aggregate assessments so that teachers will have data with
which to make an inference about whether students have
learned the curriculum;
3. Aggregate the assessment data so that district and school
strengths and needs in delivery of the curriculum across
teachers can be gathered;
4. Provide a procedure for linking the data and the results to a staff
development and curriculum development plan for the district
and a school improvement plan for the schools.

#6–8

Relate instructional units to strand maps.

The strand maps from the Atlas of Science Literacy (2001)
provide a way for aligning units of instruction to the Benchmarks to
ensure adequate coverage in instruction. They also describe the
most important aspects of units. The diagram in Figure 6.8 shows
how units might be related to the strand map. Loops on the map
indicates major areas covered by units of instruction.

Figure 6.8 Relating Instructional Units to Strand Maps

#6–9

Create strand maps for other subject areas.

The Atlas of Science Literacy (2001) demonstrates the
usefulness of strand maps. Given that all standards help to create a
picture of an integrated whole for a given subject area, constructing
strand maps using standards in other subject areas is possible.
Creating strand maps involves four steps:

1. Develop grade-level bands.

2. Map strands (major themes of the subject area). Put strands
[themes] with the most connections next to each other.
3. Organize standards within strands, mapping their connections
and demonstrating their prerequisites.
4. Chart major connections between noncontiguous strands.
 Each step is described further below.
Start with a big sheet of paper, such as paper used for flip charts.

1. Develop grade-level bands. Put the grade-level bands covered

by the standards on the left-hand side. Indicate the top level of
each band by placing a demarcation line, as in the Figure 6.9.

Figure 6.9 Sample Strand Configuration

2. Map strands. Most standards are divided into themes, or major

areas in that subject matter, that should be aligned to curriculum.
For example, the Michigan Framework for Social Studies is
divided into the following strands:

Historical Perspective
Geographic Perspective
Civic Perspective
Economic Perspective
Inquiry
Public Discourse and Decision Making
Citizen Involvement
 These strands would be placed along the top of the sheet.

Figure 6.10 Standard Strands Mapped Across Grade Levels

Further subdivisions are possible along the top, for example, the
strand “Historical Perspective” is divided into numerous sub-
themes that could also be placed across the top of the paper. Or
you could create a multipage map by placing three or four sub-
themes on a separate page.
3. Organize standards within strands. The standards for each of the
strands are then placed in the appropriate grade-level band.
Those that are most basic are placed in the lower levels of the
grade-level band. Those that have prerequisites are placed
higher. Then the standards within the strands are connected with
arrows and lines. The direction of the arrows is always over or up.
Arrows “indicate that understanding one idea contributes to
understanding the other, either logically of psychologically”
(Designs for Science Literacy, 2001, p. 184). Figure 6.11 is a
strand map highlighting the strand “Earth’s gravity” organized
across grade-level bands.
Figure 6.11 Strand Map of Earth’s Gravity Organized Across
Grade Levels

Figure 6.12 Chart Major Connections Between Noncontiguous

Strands
4. Chart major connections between noncontiguous strands.

Note the strands next to “Earth’s gravity” are “orbits” and “moon.”
Arrows are drawn to indicate that understanding one idea helps with
the understanding of the other. Be parsimonious in showing
relationships between standards, always indicating only the most
important.
 If strand maps are completed before curriculum development
begins, the activity will promote an understanding of the standards,
the relationship of the standards to each other, and the
interconnections of the strands, or themes, with other strands or
themes in the subject area. It will also help to generate consensus
among the curriculum authors about what the curriculum needs to
focus on and some alternative ways to construct the units that make
up the curriculum.
 7
Curriculum Makes a Difference—
Alignment and the TIMSS Analysis

This chapter concentrates on part of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). We single out this study
because it suggests that curriculum is the most important variable in
predicting student performance between countries. This means that
curriculum is more important than socioeconomic status in producing
results. That confirms other smaller studies that have similar findings
(see Chapter 4 on mastery learning, for example). I have chosen to
concentrate on this study because of its scope and the rigor of its
analysis.
This mammoth study of students in over forty countries teased
out some of the variables that affected performance in math and
science. If students in Japan and Thailand perform better in
mathematics than those in the United States, what helps to produce
those differences? The study generated many books and articles,
like Howson’s work (1995) already cited in Chapter 3. Schmidt et al.
(2001) in their book Why Schools Matter: A Cross-National
Comparison of Curriculum and Learning show that the content of a
country’s curriculum affects student achievement in that country.
TIMSS is the largest and most rigorous study of curriculum (and
alignment) yet produced, and the results are stunning.
Those are the headlines. How did TIMSS reach the conclusion
that curriculum affects student achievement? To answer this
question, let’s unpack the study’s methodology.
THE TIMSS METHODOLOGY—PURPOSE AND
APPROACH

Japan does better than the United States on producing math

outcomes, but the United States has a different culture than Japan.
There are different numbers of school days, books, directions on
how to use the curriculum, and tests. How can we make a valid and
reliable conclusion that Japan is better than the United States in
producing math outcomes? Isn’t this comparing apples and
oranges?
These are the challenges for researchers in cross-national
studies. Understanding how they designed the study helps us to also
understand how they confronted these challenges in order to draw
valuable conclusions about national performance.

The TIMSS Frameworks

The first problem the researchers confronted was how to describe

what happens in classrooms, what is contained in textbooks, and
what is tested. They needed a standard way to describe content so
that the content could be compared across countries. If one textbook
contains ten pages about ratio, and a textbook from another country
barely mentions ratio, that may make a difference in the outcome for
ratio. To solve this problem, the researchers developed the TIMSS
Framework Topics for both mathematics and science. (These
resemble state standards in mathematics and science.) For
example, the following (see Figure 7.1) are three categories for
fraction and decimals from the TIMSS Mathematics Framework:

Figure 7.1 Three Categories From the TIMSS Mathematics

Framework
SOURCE: From Schmidt et al., 2001, p. 364.

There were ten large categories for mathematics content (fractions

and decimals being part of the major area of numbers) and eight
large categories in science. Each contained subcategories so that
the universe of curriculum topics in math and science were
adequately described. Two other dimensions, performance
expectations and general perspectives, filled out the universe of
possibilities. Under performance expectations, or how a student is
expected to demonstrate knowledge, there were five categories:
knowing, using routine procedures, investigating and problem
solving, mathematical reasoning, and communicating. There were
five categories under general perspectives: attitudes, careers,
participation by underrepresented groups, interest, and habits of
mind.
The TIMSS frameworks provided a standard way to describe the
content for instruction, for textbooks, and for the TIMSS tests. It also
provided a way to sample teachers’ lesson plans. The content of the
plans could be coded using the TIMSS frameworks, therefore it
would not matter which country you were coding. The results could
be compared across countries because the TIMSS frameworks were
identical for each country.
The TIMSS frameworks established the base for developing
teacher questionnaires and student tests that were the same for all
the countries in the study, thus ensuring that teacher actions
revealed in the surveys and student results could be compared
across countries. In other words, the TIMSS frameworks ensured
alignment in the data collected across countries.
The TIMSS researchers collected four data sources on
curriculum:
 Content standards coded to the TIMSS frameworks
Textbook space coded to the TIMSS frameworks
Teacher content goals (from teacher questionnaires) coded to
the TIMSS frameworks
Duration of content coverage (from teacher logs) coded to the
TIMSS frameworks

Again, these data could be compared because they were coded

based on the TIMSS frameworks. The methodology is described
further in Webb (1997). More complete documentation is available in
Robitaille et al. (1993) and Schmidt et al. (2001).

Selection of Students

Two samples of students gathered from three sets of adjacent

grade levels were used in the study for example, majority nine-year-
olds (i.e., third- and fourth-grade students), majority thirteen-years-
old (seventh- and eighth-grade students), and eleventh- and twelfth-
grade students ending up in their last year of schooling who are still
studying math and science. Because both third and fourth graders
were included in the study of nine-year-olds, this study, instead of
looking at nine-year-olds as one group, divided them into two
groups: those in third grade and those in fourth grade. Looking at the
textbook space for topics, teacher goals, and duration of content
coverage and comparing these to the TIMSS test scores, it is
possible to note how students improved their achievement from, for
example, the seventh to the eighth grade. (This is not a true
longitudinal study because the samples were gathered at the same
time using different cohorts of students.)

TIMSS Tests

The TIMSS tests in math and science were designed to assess

the content of the TIMSS frameworks. TIMSS tests in math and
science were given to the nine-year-old, thirteen-year-old, and
secondary students. The results of these tests provided the outcome
data for this study. As the tests were administered across nations at
adjacent grade levels, the results between nations were compared
and gains computed. The researchers could then delve into the four
curriculum variables to determine which ones were associated with
differences in test score gains.

Scope of the TIMSS

In the TIMSS analysis, instead of looking at the relationship of one

aspect of alignment to another (e.g., textbook to test alignment), the
researchers simultaneously examined a number of variables and
found that curriculum (defined as country standards and textbooks)
influenced instruction (defined as teacher goals and time teachers
spend on content topics). In turn, that influenced achievement on
TIMSS tests.
The results of the TIMSS is that elaborate comparisons could be
made between countries: their curriculum, their textbooks, and their
outcomes (a test developed by TIMSS researchers). For example, in
the United States TIMSS characterized math instruction as a “mile
wide and an inch deep” because the curriculum covered more topics
than most other countries, and consequently, teachers had less time
to spend on each of the topics. This coverage pattern was reinforced
by textbooks and state department of education curriculum guides
(Webb, 1997).

FINDINGS—SCHMIDT ET AL. LINK CURRICULUM AND

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Schmidt et al. (2001) examined the TIMSS data to see if there was a
relationship between the curriculum, instruction, and student
achievement. The data consisted of indicators of curriculum (subject
area content standards and textbook analysis), instruction (percent
of topics covered and instructional time defined as the amount of
time on topics), and the TIMSS test (which measured achievement
growth resulting from a year of instruction). Schmidt et al.
hypothesized and found that curriculum (what is covered) influences
student achievement.
To demonstrate that curriculum influences achievement, the
researchers proposed to test the following models (see Figure 7.2).

Figure 7.2 Structural Model Relating Curriculum and Achievement

These models show the interrelationships between content

standards, textbook coverage, teacher coverage, instructional time,
and achievement gains.
The first model emphasizes teacher coverage of content and its
relationship to achievement gains. The second model emphasizes
the relationship of instructional time to achievement gains. Here
content standards influence textbook coverage; textbook coverage
influences instructional time and achievement gains. Remember that
Schmidt et al. (2001) are using the term curriculum to mean content
standards and textbook coverage; and instruction to mean teacher
coverage or instructional time. Both models show that content
standards and textbook coverage (the two circles on the far left side
of the diagram) affect teacher coverage and instructional time, as
well as influence achievement gains. The authors examined only
mathematics in the middle school years, not science. How did the
model hold up when Schmidt and his colleagues looked at the actual
TIMSS data?
Results show there was a relationship between these variables
(content standards, textbook coverage, teacher coverage, and
instructional time) and achievement gains in the subject area.

Statistically significant relationships existed between each of

the curriculum aspects and learning as characterized by
estimated achievement gains from seventh to eighth grade. …
The more curriculum coverage of a topic area—no matter
whether manifested as emphasis in content standard, as
proportion of textbook space, or as measured by either
teacher implementation variable (coverage or instructional
time)—is related to larger gains in that same topic area.
(Schmidt et al., 2001, p. 261)

Stated another way: “The curricular priorities of a country—

whether reflected by content standards, textbooks, or teacher
behavior—are related to the profile of achievement gains across
topics for that country” (Schmidt et al., 2001, p. 261). Note that the
level of analysis is by country, and of course it varies for different
countries, but the general relationship still holds.
“For both mathematics and science, the direct relationship
between textbook coverage and learning was defined at the topic
level” (Schmidt et al., 2001, p. 267). This means that the amount of
coverage of topics in the textbook determined how well students did
on the TIMSS test. If there were many pages of coverage for
perimeter, area, and volume, then students’ results on the items for
perimeter, area, and volume were higher than in countries with fewer
pages in the textbook. The study also found a relationship between
time spent on the topic across countries. “Higher percentages of
coverage on a typical topic that involved more demanding
performance expectations were associated with larger-than-average
achievement gains” (Schmidt et al., 2001, p. 303). This supports
previous recommendations for the United States to cover fewer
topics in math and science while devoting more time to each topic.
We see how curriculum is associated with achievement. In other
international studies of achievement, researchers only reported how
students did, not how much they gained. Those achievement
statistics (how well students did) significantly correlated with
measures of the countries’ wealth or economic development. Would
the same correlation between wealth and achievement gains hold
true during the year of the TIMSS for students at contiguous grade
levels? (Remember, in the chapter on mastery learning, Wishnick
(1986) had found that an aligned curriculum reduced the influence of
socioeconomic status on student achievement to almost zero.
Similar results were found by Price-Baugh (1997) and Moss-Mitchell
(1998).)
The study found that GNP (gross national product) as a measure
of a country’s wealth was not strongly related to achievement gains
in either math or science (in science only three topics out of
seventeen had significant relationships) [Schmidt et al., 2001, p.
319]. This confirms the findings of Wishnick and Price-Baugh,
reported earlier, that discovered little relationship between
socioeconomic status and student outcome when alignment was
controlled. The finding also suggests that the content of curriculum
and instruction are more important than socioeconomic status in
determining learning gains.
The study went deeper into the data, looking at achievement just
in the United States and controlled for socioeconomic status and
prior achievement in mathematics (science wasn’t analyzed in this
way). “The general conclusion is that curriculum or OTL (Opportunity
to Learn) was significantly related to achievement in U.S. eighth-
grade math classrooms” (Schmidt et al., 2001, p. 340). Explained
another way: “…differences in learning among U.S. eighth-grade
mathematics classrooms were related to concomitant differences in
the amount of instructional time that teachers allocated to supporting
curriculum areas even when we adjusted for differences among
classrooms due to SES [socioeconomic status] and prior learning.
This was true in all subtest areas (except two)” [Schmidt et al., 2001,
pp. 341–342].
For student learning, the extent of opportunities to learn
curriculum content matters. The more time a teacher spends on a
topic, the greater achievement score for that topic. Effect sizes, as
measured by R², were between .4 and .6 thereby explaining a
significant portion of the variance.

In other words, on average, for a classroom that spent about

one week more on a topic than another classroom, where the
two classrooms were similar in SES [socioeconomic status]
composition and in terms of prior achievement, the former
would have a predicted achievement score some 3 to 24
percentage points higher than that of the other class. Thus, it
seems unsurprising that even a small amount of additional
instruction (as little as a week for each) focused on these key
topics would predict large increases in learning (around 20
percentile points). (Schmidt et al., 2001, p. 344)

The big idea is that a significant relationship exists between

achievement gains and curriculum. “Schools matter because through
the curriculum they provide a systematic opportunity for students to
learn and master the subject matter contents and processes
necessary for their successful living. … Curriculum mattered to
learning in mathematics and the sciences. In case after case, some
significant relationship was found between achievement gains and
curriculum” (Schmidt et al., 2001, p. 355). Curriculum is something
that school districts control, even with the existence of state
standards and state tests. Although the study points out the
influences of standards and textbooks on curriculum decisions by
teachers, right now most school personnel are not familiar with
curriculum structures that will have an effect on student achievement
(for more on this see Chapters 8 and 9).

Figure 7.3 The Alignment Matrix—The TIMSS

The alignment matrix in Figure 7.3 shows the complex alignment

relationships demonstrated in the TIMSS. Note that the two lines
have directional arrows, which means that textbooks and standards
have a demonstrated influence on the content of instruction.

WHAT DISTRICTS CAN DO

It is of paramount importance to make sure students have the
opportunity to learn important content aligned with standards and
assessments. Curriculum for school districts is no longer “just nice to
have.” Curriculum is a necessity for furthering student achievement.
Further, school districts, through their curricula, have the tools at
their disposal to control and ensure what students learn. We need a
surge of district led curriculum writing aligned with important content
area standards to ensure that all children will learn. These studies
indicate that achievement gains will follow.

#7–1

Decide on fewer topics covered in more depth, particularly in

math.
Many mathematics textbooks, in order to be all things to all
school districts and cover all topics listed in all state standards, cover
too many topics. Students don’t get the depth they need because
they cover many topics in a cursory manner. The TIMSS showed
that countries that cover fewer topics per year generally have higher
achievement. This suggests that districts need to reduce the number
of topics covered so more depth is possible.
Districts can set up pacing charts keyed to textbooks and other
instructional material that will give teachers guidance on what topics
are most important to cover. The pacing guide can be developed by
representative teachers from across the district. One difficulty with
this approach is that there may not be enough material in the
textbooks to ensure depth of coverage. Supplemental material or
items available on the Internet are one way to solve this problem.
Some districts share textbooks from the grade level above and
below so there is enough material for the expanded time. Others
have begun to place teacher made material on the district’s Web
site, and thus solve the distribution issue in that way.

Pluses

Spending more time on fewer topics has been demonstrated to

improve achievement on those topics.
Teachers would be more sure about what to cover and the
materials for covering the specified topics.

Other Considerations
 It may be difficult to gather enough teaching material for in-
depth coverage of fewer topics.
Textbooks may not contain enough material for in-depth
coverage of fewer topics.
Everybody else doesn’t do it this way.

#7–2

Develop districtwide tests, aligned to state assessments, to

gain data on students’ mastery of topics.
Many districts have developed quarterly assessments that are in
the same format as the state tests. Many of these tests, however,
aren’t aligned to the curriculum that was covered since the last test.
Having such a test would allow districts to make data-based
decisions about whether the students learned what they were taught.

Pluses

Tests provide a standard way to determine effectiveness across

teachers.
If state tests don’t report scores for topics, the district scores
would be valuable for helping the district to improve its
effectiveness.

Other Considerations

The tests would need to be constructed such that they are

reliable and valid, and many districts don’t have that capacity.
The tests need to be based on a curricular scope and sequence,
and not every district has a curriculum that guides instruction in
this way.
Data from testing could be used in the teacher evaluation
process.

#7–3
 Use test results to vary time and coverage of key topics.
If state tests present their results by topic or by item, it is possible
for districts to use this information to make changes in the amount of
time spent on various topics. Representative teacher committees in
various subject areas could do this when the results of the tests are
returned to the district. For example, if students did well in a
particular topic, then the district could consider reducing the amount
of time spent on that topic. Conversely, if students didn’t do well on a
topic, then the district may want to consider spending more time on
it. Districts that develop this approach need to ensure that principals
monitor that teachers are spending the appropriate time and
following the district’s guidelines.

Pluses

Time spent on topics is flexible rather than fixed and can be

modified based on test data.

Other Considerations
It may be difficult to monitor teachers’ use of time across the
district.
Defining time for a topic area won’t help if everyone doesn’t
have a good idea of what should be covered in the topic area.
Defining what should be covered in a topic may necessitate
some staff development activities if teachers don’t have
background in that particular topic area.
 Part III

The Aligned Curriculum

Part II described three systematic ways to address alignment and

showed how they could improve achievement. Part III poses criteria
for systematically addressing alignment issues through curriculum.
One curriculum model called the Balanced Curriculum, developed
specifically to systematically address alignment issues, is described.
We will see how it meets the criteria for addressing alignment issues.
The book ends with a chapter showing how the Balanced Curriculum
meets many of the book’s recommendations for district interventions.
The model has demonstrated that addressing alignment issues
through curriculum improves student achievement, with a summary
of results from districts who have implemented the model.
 8
Criteria for a Useful and Usable
Curriculum Incorporating Alignment

In previous chapters alignment issues were spelled out in detail

through the various alignment categories on the alignment matrix.
The research clearly shows that alignment is essential to improving
student achievement. Many of the alignment strategies proposed in
this book take pieces of the alignment puzzle and show how districts
can address these specific areas.
Chapter 7 summarized research suggesting that an aligned
curriculum is a major influence in producing student achievement.
Thus, the focus of this chapter is on curriculum, not on alignment.
We will examine how to structure a district’s curriculum in order to
harness alignment’s power through a systematic curriculum
development process. What would happen if curriculum structures
systematically incorporated all the different aspects of alignment so
the pieces worked together to create a powerful whole that improved
student achievement? Then, if a district were to develop the
curriculum using this structure, they could be assured that the many
alignment issues suggested by the research are addressed, and
student achievement would improve as a result of using an
alignment-inclusive curriculum.
In this chapter, we will put together a rationale for structuring
curriculum. It contrasts our definition of curriculum with a common
definition of curriculum. The details of this chapter also demonstrate
how our definition of curriculum works because it incorporates the
research about alignment. The chapter ends with ten criteria for a
useful and usable curriculum that will help districts determine
whether their design capitalizes on the alignment research.
 One systematic way to incorporate many of the individual
suggestions made in this book is through curriculum design. After
this chapter’s discussion of elements of a curriculum definition,
Chapter 9 will present the Balanced Curriculum as one systematic
and research-based way to design curriculum that accounts for
alignment and demonstrates achievement gains.

THE MANY MEANINGS OF CURRICULUM

Curriculum has many different meanings. The alignment matrix used
throughout this book illustrates some of those meanings.

Figure 8.1 The Alignment Matrix

Some researchers emphasized that textbooks or state standards

are the curriculum because they provide guidance on what students
know and are able to do. Others believe that it is the instructional
elements. The lesson plans or the student assignments represent
the curriculum to other researchers, because these elements specify
what students know and should be able to do on a daily basis. These
various definitions present different levels of specificity (e.g., a
lesson plan versus state standards). The definitions also take into
account different time perspectives (daily for lesson planning versus
yearly or longer for state standards). Only by knowing how
curriculum is defined will we be able to ensure the continuous,
positive achievement effects promised in the alignment research.

THE COMMON DEFINITION OF CURRICULUM

Let’s begin with the common definition of curriculum to show the way
school districts typically define curriculum: Curriculum sets the goals
for instruction; teachers independently decide how to achieve those
goals. For many educators, curriculum is just a list of goals agreed
upon by the organization. The educators decide how to meet the
goals by making decisions about time (i.e., how much time to spend
on achieving the goal) and the process of how to go about teaching.
The common definition reinforces the agreement between the
organization and educator about goals for instruction. In this case,
teachers have the autonomy to interpret the goals for instruction in
any way. Districts specify the goals and individual teachers decide
how to meet the goals in their classes, with little or no accountability
(i.e., checking to see if the goals were addressed or accomplished)
from district- or school-level administration. Many districts still
operate in this manner today.
Enter the standards movement. Standards—what students
should know and be able to do—set the goals for instruction.
Operating within their authority, the state replaced the district in
setting the goals. Districts now have to find a way to meet those
goals. If the previous agreements are continued, then individual
teachers have the authority to decide how and when to enact the
standards. Little checking on whether the goals are taught or met
occurs. Again, many school districts continue these arrangements.
Standards increase pressure on districts because achievement is
assessed by high-stakes state tests with highly publicized results.
These hold districts, superintendents, schools, and principals
responsible for progress, or the lack thereof, and students’
performance on standards-based state assessments. Additionally,
No Child Left Behind legislation requires that all children be proficient
on their state test by 2014. Many states and districts have a long
way to go.
Curriculum’s common agreement that districts (or states) propose
the goals and that individual teachers decide how the goals will be
realized needs to change in order to meet the current realities of the
standards movement, accountability, and No Child Left Behind. It
needs to change because teachers working individually have no way
of aligning their instruction or their individual curriculum. To do so
would be too inefficient and cost prohibitive. Yet, as the research
points out, alignment is the key to unlocking improved student
achievement.
Districts tend to address pieces of the alignment issue by
implementing a few of the actions suggested in previous chapters of
this book. For example, a district may reason that quarterly
assessments will provide the necessary information to predict results
on the yearly state assessment. This “test more” strategy assumes
that the additional testing and feedback will help teachers make the
right decisions about what to teach and how to teach it, thus scores
on the quarterly assessments and yearly state test will improve.
Districts respond to pressure by enacting a combination of
strategies that specify when content is taught, what content is taught,
and how content is taught. For example, pacing guides may outline
when topics are taught and what topics are taught, thus leaving it to
the individual teacher’s choice as to how topics are taught within the
time constraints. The how-to-teach part of the alignment process is
absent. Greater variability in teaching occurs if how to teach is not
addressed. Test scores will reflect this variability.
To address this problem, some districts adopt prescriptive
programs such as Success for All—Roots and Wings for Elementary
School Reading, a script that tells teachers what to say and do
(Slavin & Madden, 2003). Such programs address how-to-teach
issues by scripting individual lessons for all teachers. Unfortunately,
they do not address how well the program’s content may be aligned
to state standards and assessments. The program’s generally
positive results suggest that controlling for teacher variability when
implementing curriculum can result in positive achievement gains. To
maximize these gains, however, alignment with state standards and
assessments must occur in order to capitalize on alignment’s ability
to produce higher student achievement.
The main flaw with curriculum is that of individual variation
between teachers. Because individual teachers decide how and
when to teach the standards (goals), no two teachers will produce
the same results, and the risk for large variations in test scores
between teachers increases significantly.
There is no way for individual teachers to align the instruction
with the standards, except to hope that the teachers have read the
hundreds of standards statements and integrated them when
instructing their students. Such hope is futile because it is impossible
for teachers to keep hundreds of standards statements in their heads
while making thousands of decisions during instruction. If teachers
individually decide what and how to teach, then there is little
alignment between classroom instruction and state standardized
tests. What alignment there is probably will vary tremendously
among teachers. As a result, this virtually guarantees that alignment
of curriculum and standards across the professional teaching
community of the school district will not and cannot occur.
Consequently, standardized test results will not improve.
Implementing the common definition of curriculum will not work.
For a curriculum to capture the power of alignment, the curriculum
needs to specify when the content is taught, what content is taught,
and how the content is taught. Our definition of curriculum contains
these elements.

OUR DEFINITION OF CURRICULUM

I call this definition of curriculum the standards-based definition and,

in contrast with the common definition, this one states:
 Curriculum is the district’s written plan incorporating aspects
of time use, content, and process aligned to standards and
assessments that establishes a focus for instruction,
assessment, staff development, and management so student
achievement improves.

Let’s examine each phrase in the definition to understand its

implications.

“Curriculum is the district’s written plan …”

The district is the definition’s focus because the district has the
responsibility of determining how the standards are enacted, not the
schools or individual teachers as occurs in the common definition.
The focus emerges from a resource issue: Most schools and
individual teachers do not have the time or resources to produce,
maintain, and improve a written plan for instruction other than lesson
plans.

“… incorporating aspects of time use, content, and

process …”

A curriculum needs to demonstrate how time will be used

(Walberg, 1988). Many districts already have pacing guides that
specify how much time is used on particular topics or units;
therefore, a curriculum needs to specify the content to be covered
during a particular time period. Time management for teaching core
concepts, therefore, becomes an integral part of the process for
covering important curricular content. No longer can individual
teachers make individual decisions about what and when to teach
important content. But we will discuss more about this later.
Finally, the district stipulates the process by which important
content is covered. For example, teaching main idea by asking
students to develop newspaper headlines is a powerful teaching
technique that specifies the process by which the concept main idea
is taught. Linking content and process together in the standards-
based curriculum is different from the common definition of
curriculum where only content or goals are specified and the process
is under the purview of the individual teacher. Under the common
definition, main idea might be taught by using sample state test
questions about main idea or any one of a hundred different
instructional methods, increasing variability across the school and
district. Experienced teachers can distinguish between powerful and
weak ways to address content. Their expertise should be
incorporated into the curriculum so the most powerful teaching
strategies can be used on a systematic basis. If all of the
curriculum’s goals are addressed with powerful strategies that all
students had access to, achievement would likely improve.

“… aligned to standards and assessments …”

Standards-based curricula require that time, content, and process

be described and aligned to standards and assessments. The
common definition does not even consider alignment to state
standards. By demonstrating in writing how standards will be met,
we fulfill a primary function of the education system. Curricula
becomes evidence-based, as illustrated by all of the research cited
in this book.

“… that establishes a focus for instruction, assessment,

staff development and management …”

A link has already been established between curriculum and

instruction, but curriculum is also connected to assessment, staff
development processes, and management functions. These issues
have traditionally not been part of curriculum design.
If curriculum is a written plan for instruction, it must be linked to
the instruction that takes place in the classroom. By now, it should be
clear that this link includes the instructional process, how the
standards are actually delivered in the classroom, and specifies how
time is used.
In addition, we must ask ourselves How well do students know?
How ably can they perform? These are assessment questions that
are not separate from curriculum but intimately related to it, as the
Understanding by Design framework for curriculum development
demonstrates (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005).
Curriculum structures also require management. Through
management processes, the district knows that the curriculum
(written plan) is assessed and then implemented. Decisions, based
on good data, can then be made about whether to improve,
maintain, or modify the written plan.

“… so student achievement improves.”

Regardless of how student achievement is defined, curriculum

should be aligned to assessments in order to demonstrate
improvements or identify achievement declines. Improved
achievement is the outcome of a well developed, aligned, and
implemented curriculum. If student achievement is not improving,
then districts need to reexamine their curriculum development plan.
If the function of the district’s curriculum is not to improve
achievement, then developing a curriculum is not productive work. If
the written plan (the curriculum) did not work the first time, then
changes need to be made so it will work better the second time. This
book demonstrates that the key component of curriculum is
alignment. Those changes to the written plan give the district the
necessary data and tools to revise the curriculum. For example, if
achievement decreased in the persuasive writing section of the state
assessment, was it because of

time or lack of time spent on persuasive essays?

how persuasive essays were taught and learned?
 the alignment between instruction and standards and the way
the standards are assessed?
unit assessments that do not align with the standardized
assessments?
the management of the curriculum? Was the concept taught by
teachers in the district? Were there early warnings from district
or unit assessments that there were problems? Did this data
come to decision makers in a timely and useful fashion?
lack of staff development on teaching and grading persuasive
essays?

The variation in the potential causes of decreased student

achievement highlight the importance of alignment.
The problem of curriculum design, therefore, must be integrated
into the assessment, staff development, and management structures
of a district if the district is to use curriculum as a tool for improving
student achievement. All pieces of the definition of curriculum have
to be in place for curriculum to affect student achievement. Ralph
Tyler said it best:

The primary educational function of organization is to relate

the various learning experiences which together comprise the
curriculum so as to produce the maximum cumulative effect in
attaining the objectives of the school. The significant question
to ask about any scheme of organization is: How adequately
does it provide reinforcement of the several learning
experiences so that they produce a maximum cumulative
effect? (Tyler, 1977, p. 48)

We need to describe the powerful learning experiences (not just

the goals) as part of a curriculum. Then the evaluation of those
learning experiences provides the district with the opportunity to
improve the alignment, the links between curriculum and
assessment, so the structure can affect student achievement.
Does such a curriculum structure exist? Does it improve
achievement? In the next section, I will describe how this curriculum
definition structures a system of curriculum development,
implementation, and refinement called the “Balanced Curriculum”
and provide evidence that such a structure can dramatically affect
student achievement because it systematically addresses alignment.
Although the Balanced Curriculum is used as the model, I believe
that any curriculum development system that incorporates all the
major aspects of our definition and meets the ten criteria for a useful
and usable curriculum (see Resource A) would theoretically produce
similar results.

CRITERIA FOR A USEFUL AND USABLE CURRICULUM

In Resource A at the end of this book, I provide a rubric along with

the following ten criteria for structuring a useful and usable
curriculum:

1. Curriculum is useful and usable if it helps teachers use time to

address content and pace instruction appropriately.
2. Curriculum is usable if the content is structured so that teachers
know what is most important to teach and outlines how to teach
the important content.
3. Curriculum is usable if teachers have the flexibility to use their
own creativity when planning instruction.
4. Curriculum is useful if it focuses teacher instruction on the
standards.
5. Curriculum is useful if it helps teachers balance their instruction
so ideas aren’t over- or underemphasized.
6. Curriculum is useful if it helps teachers and administrators know
that students have performed at high levels on instruction
aligned with standards and assessments.
7. Curriculum is useful and usable if the results of curriculum-
embedded assessments can be compared with the results of
state and standardized tests.
8. Curriculum is useful if it brings teachers together to collaborate
on designing the curriculum and planning instruction.
 9. Curriculum is useful if it has a structure for monitoring student
and teacher completion of the curriculum.
10. Curriculum is usable if it is revised yearly to take into account
the most recent performance on state or standardized tests (or
both) and teachers’ experience with the curriculum.

I would suggest that a district curriculum committee examine the

five parts of the curriculum definition then commit the district’s
curriculum design to writing in a three- to five-page written
document. The ten criteria can then be used to rate the district’s
curriculum design (using the rubrics in Resource A) to determine
whether it will be powerful and efficient at producing improved
student achievement, based on how it takes into account the
alignment research. In the next chapter, I will model how to apply the
ten criteria for structuring a useful and usable curriculum after
showing how the Balanced Curriculum addresses alignment issues.
 9
Addressing Alignment Through a
Curriculum Design

The Balanced Curriculum Model

In the last chapter, we developed a definition of curriculum differing

from the common definition and posed ten criteria for a useful and
usable curriculum including attention to alignment. This chapter
introduces the Balanced Curriculum model, one example of a
curriculum design that brings the alignment pieces together in one
system for curriculum development and implementation for school
districts. The results from districts that wrote and implemented the
Balanced Curriculum design show improved achievement in all
cases where implementation was strong.
The Balanced Curriculum meets the definition of curriculum from
the last chapter and fulfills the ten criteria for a useful and usable
curriculum. The suggestions at the end of previous chapters can be
combined into one curriculum system so that numerous strategies
are not needed to ensure alignment. Because it is a curriculum
system, the parts and pieces reinforce each other, thus ensuring
alignment to the many facets of the alignment matrix.
Districts may have adopted many of these criteria in their
curriculum design. If they are not getting significantly improved
achievement, they may want to revisit their design to make sure all
ten criteria are being met. The Balanced Curriculum is one model in
which all of the ten criteria are met. All districts that have used the
Balanced Curriculum design and ensured implementation have been
rewarded with significantly improved achievement. Below are a few
examples.
RESULTS FROM SCHOOL DISTRICTS USING
CURRICULUM THAT MEETS THE TEN CRITERIA

Implementing the Balanced Curriculum approach can be the key to

improved achievement. Data from the many schools and districts
across the country that have used the Balanced Curriculum process
to design their own curriculum shows that the process significantly
improves achievement (Squires, 2005a, pp. 295–307). As Figure 9.1
demonstrates, school districts that both designed and implemented
the curriculum saw their scores improve significantly
(http://www.balancedcurriculum.com/results.htm).
Because the Balanced Curriculum operates from the Web with
access determined by passwords, districts can save money through
coordinated Web-based review and revision of their own curricula
rather than via a paper-based process. Most districts can pay for the
Web site access with the money they save in printing and publication
costs.
In the last chapter we defined curriculum as a district’s plan for
guiding and aligning instruction. Student test performance improves
because standards and standards-based assessment is ensured
through staff development and district management of the
curriculum. The findings suggest that districts can improve
achievement by implementing a plan that:

1. structures curriculum to guide instruction (time, content, and

process);
2. aligns curriculum content to standards and high-stakes tests;
3. assesses students on curriculum-based tasks and provides
practice on high-stakes test formats;
4. ensures management of curriculum implementation, including
staff development;
5. ensures management of data used to improve the curriculum.

These are the five major areas incorporated into the curriculum
definition posed in Chapter 8.
Figure 9.1 Results From Schools and Districts That Have
Developed and Implemented the Balanced Curriculum
 This chapter demonstrates how the Balanced Curriculum process
uses the above curriculum components to meet the criteria for a
useful and usable curriculum that improves achievement and
includes attention to alignment issues. After I describe how the
Balanced Curriculum works, I will explain how this curriculum
structure affects student achievement and alignment. This chapter
will end with a review of the ten criteria for a useful and usable
curriculum.
The Balanced Curriculum is one model for development and
implementation that uses the research about alignment to structure
curriculum to improve student achievement on high-stakes tests.
Many popular curriculum designs do not take the power of alignment
into full consideration, including Wiggins and McTighe’s
Understanding by Design (2005), Erickson’s Concept-Based
Curriculum in Stirring the Head, Heart, and Soul (2001), Tomlinson’s
Parallel Curriculum (2002), Posner and Rudnitsky’s Course Design
(2006), and Jacobs’ Curriculum Mapping (2004).

THE BALANCED CURRICULUM MODEL

Districts using the Balanced Curriculum Web site enter their

curriculum information so that all teachers in the district have access
to all the curriculum’s components. The Balanced Curriculum has the
following components:

Courses
Time-bound units
Significant tasks (or assured activities)
Alignment of significant tasks to standards and assessment
Curriculum-embedded assessment aligned to state standards
and assessment specifications
A management system for tracking classes’ progress
A record of teachers’ comments to guide staff development
planning
Yearly curriculum revision process

The following sections describe each component in detail.

Courses, Units, and Significant Tasks Guide Time,

Content, and Process Dimensions of the Curriculum

The curriculum is written by the district’s teacher-authors to guide

instruction. Courses are divided into time-bound units so teachers
know the pace of instruction. This ensures that everyone will
complete the course’s curriculum and students will not get left
behind. Within the unit, significant tasks or assured activities,
described by district teacher-authors in a paragraph, specify what
district teachers should teach (an objective) and which instructional
processes to use. The significant tasks take longer to complete than
a daily lesson plan and generally encompass two days’ to two
weeks’ worth of activities. The unit’s significant tasks take
approximately 60–70% of the unit’s time. The other 30–40% is spent
however the teacher decides to meet the class’ needs, through
remediation or enrichment or both. This allows teachers to retain the
creative aspects of instruction.
Forty to sixty significant tasks usually make up a course. The
significant tasks are the teacher’s promise that most students will be
ready for the following course or grade level. Figure 9.2 is a sample
significant task for a high school English course.

Figure 9.2 Sample Significant Task for High School English

1Other examples of significant tasks can be found by going to

www.balancedcurriculum.com using the User Name: SCSU Student, Password: 1234.
There are over 200 courses there that have significant tasks developed for a vast variety of
courses.

How Does the Curriculum Structure Affect Achievement

and Alignment?
We know that students’ prerequisite skills have a powerful effect
on future learning (Bloom, 1976). If students enter a course with
appropriate prerequisite skills, they are more likely to learn than if
they lack the prerequisite skills. A district curriculum can ensure
more students have those prerequisite skills by providing core or
assured experiences (significant tasks) to which all students have
equal access. Significant tasks also ensure that teachers are using a
majority of their time teaching the most important content. This will
not happen in a coordinated way without a curriculum (Walberg,
1988; Schmidt et al., 2001). Because the significant tasks are
common across classrooms, when aligned to standards and
assessments, they accurately reflect the “balance” of the curriculum.

Align to Standards and High-Stakes Assessment

Specifications—Step 1

Alignment of curriculum to standards and high-stakes testing

provides a powerful predictor of the curriculum’s effect, as
demonstrated by the many research studies cited in this book (e.g.,
Wishnick, 1989; Schmidt et al., 2001; Porter & Smithson, 2001). The
curriculum authors align significant tasks to state standards and
high-stakes assessment specifications. The vocabulary from the
standards is explicitly incorporated into the significant tasks. Then
the Web site generates a report showing the alignments for each
significant task. Figure 9.3 illustrates how a significant task about a
“Portfolio Project” is aligned to Connecticut’s standards and state
test blueprints. (The Web site contains all state and national
standards, as well as local standards or a district’s power standards
for all enrollees.)
In Figure 9.3 the significant task is listed at the top. The first
column lists the state standards and assessment specifications that
the authors aligned to the significant task. For example, CAPT
(Connecticut Academic Performance Test) Grade 10 Response to
Literature is the state assessment specification for the part of the
reading test for the state. The second column contains the state’s
code for this assessment specification. The third column lists what
the state includes in that item. For example, in the area of CAPT 10
—Editing and Revising, commas in a series, tone, misplaced
modifiers, and proper notes are all aligned to the significant task.
The curriculum authors debated among themselves and came to a
consensus about the most important areas for alignment with the
significant task.

How Does the Alignment Strategy Affect Achievement and

Alignment?
Each significant task is taught by every teacher, using his or her
unique style and teaching processes. Districts can be assured that
standards aligned to the significant tasks are covered. The variability
across teachers is decreased, while still allowing teachers to teach
the significant task in ways that fit their style. This ensures alignment
because the significant tasks cover the standards and the state test
specifications.

Figure 9.3 Alignment of the Significant Task to the Standards and

the Assessment Specifications
*CAPT = Connecticut Academic Performance Test

Figure 9.4 Alignment of Connecticut Test Specifications to

Significant Tasks
*CAPT = Connecticut Academic Performance Test

Align to Standards and High-Stakes Assessment

Specifications—Step 2: Balancing the Aligned
Curriculum

Next, the alignments are summarized by course so the teacher-

authors can determine if the balance among the standards is
appropriate.
Figure 9.4 shows that for the CAPT (Connecticut Academic
Performance Test), four significant tasks in four different units were
aligned to the “Topic Sentence” content area on the state test. For
“Supportive Detail” there were three significant tasks in three
different units. For “Tone” there was one significant task in one unit
aligned to this area of the test.
Teacher-authors may use Figure 9.4 to consider whether one
significant task on tone (CAPT 1.5) provides sufficient emphasis for
ninth-grade English, as only one significant task is aligned to the
standard for tone. Curriculum teacher-authors use their professional
judgments, as well as item analysis of district test scores, to support
their decisions. For example, if students in the district didn’t do well
on the items testing tone on the state test, then the curriculum
authors may want to add more significant tasks in other units which
address tone. On the other hand, if the test results on tone were
satisfactory, they may decide not to change it. This helps maintain
teacher autonomy while ensuring standards are met.
Another report (see Figure 9.5) shows the number of significant
tasks addressed by each standard and sub-standard. For example,
look at the second standard listed in Figure 9.5 (K4.02.02). In the
first column, the numeral 3 indicates that there are three significant
tasks aligned to this standard. The standard is given in the third
column.

Figure 9.5 Report of Number of Significant Tasks for the Course

Aligned to Significant Tasks
 The curriculum authors can use this report to ask questions about
inadequate alignment and overemphasized alignment.

Inadequate Alignment
After reviewing Figure 9.5, the curriculum authors might ask, Why
are there no significant tasks addressing the first standard and last
standard in this section? Does the curriculum (via significant tasks)
actually address these areas but they were not aligned because
other alignments took priority? Was the alignment miscoded? Or did
the curriculum (significant tasks) ignore these areas (usually
inadvertently) and code others in its place? Do we as authors want
to add or modify significant tasks so these areas can be addressed?

Overemphasized Alignment
 The curriculum authors will need to decide whether standard
K4.02.04, which is aligned to five significant tasks, is
overemphasized given that two other standards (K4.02.01 and
K4.02.05) have not been addressed at all. The curriculum authors
will need to decide whether alignment to five significant tasks is too
many. They may reason that because of the emphasis in the state
test, coverage is necessary for the five significant tasks. Conversely,
they could reason that such emphasis is inappropriate given the
unaligned standards. Significant tasks may need to be rewritten for
appropriate alignment. This ensures that all the significant tasks
address the standards and assessment specifications in ways that
the district’s curriculum authors know is appropriate.

How Does the Alignment Strategy Affect Achievement and

Alignment?
Students cannot learn what has not been taught (Schmidt et al.,
2001). Aggregating alignment data by course ensures that the
course design covers the standards and assessment specifications.
The curriculum has power because the significant tasks, aligned to
the standards and assessment specifications, are taught to all
students. Therefore, students need access to instruction and time on
topics required to meet the standards and achieve good test scores.
Although all significant tasks are aligned individually, the power of
alignment to improve achievement can only be determined through
aggregating alignment information by course, not by individual tasks
or lesson plans. The balance across the course is the most important
indicator of improved achievement.

Assessing the Curriculum

Each significant task provides an opportunity for assessment. As

the significant tasks are aligned to the standards, the assessment
automatically covers similar territory. Teacher-authors construct a
performance assessment for each significant task, so students have
a standard way of demonstrating performance and teachers have a
uniform way of grading the performance. The data from the
assessments provide the district with comparable information about
students’ competence on the significant tasks and also indicates how
well they performed on the aligned standards. The district can use
assessment reports aggregated by school, task, or aligned
standards. Such data can be used in recommending improvements
to the curriculum.
Another type of assessment, the format assessment, provides all
students with the once-per-unit opportunity to practice using a quiz
that has the same format as the high-stakes state test. As the format
assessments usually occur at the end of units, extensive test
preparation is no longer necessary before the high-stakes test.
Spaced practice is a better way to learn to take tests than intensive,
often anxiety-provoking, practice right before the state assessment.

How Does Assessment Data Affect Achievement and

Alignment?
The research suggests that students who have demonstrated
competency on areas of the high-stakes test before taking the test
are likely to do better than those who do not have the prerequisite
skills. Likewise, students that understand the format of the test tend
to do better than those who do not (Cohen, 1987).
The assessments help to determine whether students who do
well on the significant tasks and format assessments will then do
well on the high-stakes test. Since the district now has data, it can
figure out whether this connection is strong or weak and modify the
curriculum accordingly. Thus data drives the curriculum changes,
built on the aligned assessments. For example, results of the content
assessments, which test students’ competence on particular
standards, can be aligned with the district results from the state test
provided that the state test reports this information so data can be
compared. If the results on the content assessment are strong, but
the results on the items from the state test are weak, then curriculum
authors will need to decide if the significant task is strong enough.
Implementing the Curriculum

The district must plan strategies to ensure that the curriculum is

actually implemented by the district’s teachers and that teachers are
actually teaching the significant tasks. This helps address teacher
accountability. Because all teachers use the same significant tasks
for a course, tracking a teacher’s progress is a matter of determining
if the significant tasks are taught. On the Balanced Curriculum Web
site where the curriculum is located, teachers can log in to check off
completion of a significant task and view their own completion
record, but they cannot view other’s completion records. Principals
can check the progress of all teachers in their buildings. District staff
can access completion information across district schools. This
provides easily accessible information for managing student learning
without micromanaging teachers’ instruction.

How Does Implementation Affect Achievement and

Alignment?
Ensuring that the units and significant tasks are taught guarantees
all students access to content aligned to standards and high-stakes
tests. It provides the next course’s teacher with students whose
prerequisite skills are similar. Principals now have a defined role in
curriculum implementation: helping teacher groups implement the
curriculum and monitoring progress to ensure that teachers complete
the curriculum. They have data at their fingertips through access to
up-to-the-minute reports from the Balanced Curriculum Web site to
complete the job. Grade-level or course-level teams can also
organize to assist each other with curriculum implementation
discussions, thus fostering teamwork among the staff.

Modifying the Curriculum

The curriculum plan now generates data, so the curriculum can be

modified based on the data. When modifying the curriculum,
teachers and administrators need to ask questions about the data
such as those shown in Figure 9.6.

Figure 9.6 Using Data Generated by Curriculum Implementation

How Does Modifying the Curriculum Affect Achievement

and Alignment?
If the units and significant tasks are modified, then the alignments
and assessments need to be modified also. Curriculum authors will
need to determine whether the changes affect the balance and
whether there now is an over- or underemphasis of particular
standards in the curriculum.
Achievement can be positively affected if test results can be used
to determine what curricular modifications to make. If main idea was
an area in need of improvement, then more emphasis on that topic in
the form of more time or more significant tasks needs to be
employed. The sixty-percent time rule also needs to be taken into
account so that the curriculum doesn’t become stuffed with
curriculum that takes too much time to accomplish. All these
decisions rest on the judgment of the curriculum author team that is
modifying the curriculum—a job for the best and the brightest minds
in the district.
IS THE BALANCED CURRICULUM USEFUL AND
USABLE?

In the last chapter I proposed ten criteria for a useful and usable
curriculum, emphasizing alignment. Let’s review that now to see how
the Balanced Curriculum meets those ten criteria.

1. Curriculum is useful and usable if it helps teachers use time to

address content and pace instruction appropriately.
The units, with their unit introductions, provide an overview of
the content contained in the unit and a specific time frame that
indicates begin and end dates for pacing each unit. Teachers
can record their completions of significant tasks on the Web site.
School and district leaders can view reports that show how
individual schools or the district as a whole is proceeding on
implementing the curriculum. Important content is addressed
through the significant tasks.
2. Curriculum is usable if the content is structured so that teachers
know what is most important to teach and outlines how to teach
important content.
The significant tasks provide teachers with the content of what is
important as well as a paragraph-length outline of an effective
way to present the content developed by the curriculum authors
from the district. The significant tasks use 60–70 % of the unit’s
time, allowing teachers time for remediation and enrichment
depending on students’ needs. Everyone presents the
significant tasks, although individual interpretation is
encouraged. Feedback from schools implementing the Balanced
Curriculum suggests that new teachers appreciate the strong
instructional models and processes incorporated into the
significant tasks; it allows new teachers to learn powerful ways
to teach the content sooner rather than discovering powerful
and appropriate methods on their own. The significant tasks
reduce teacher variation, because everyone teaches using
these strong instructional models.
3. Curriculum is usable if teachers have the flexibility to use their
own creativity when planning instruction.
Although the significant tasks, or assured activities, are used by
everyone, teachers can present the significant tasks in whatever
order makes sense to them in each unit. They can also interpret
the significant tasks in different ways to allow them to
incorporate their own styles of teaching with the significant
tasks. Finally, teachers can comment on the significant tasks
and units so that their individual suggestions can be
incorporated into the curriculum when it is revised.
4. Curriculum is useful if it focuses teacher instruction on the
standards.
Because the significant tasks are aligned to the standards, when
the teachers teach the significant tasks, they are automatically
helping students meet the standards. And because everyone
teaches the significant tasks, administrators can be confident
that all students will meet the standards. Because the significant
tasks take up 60-70% of the curriculum’s time, 60-70% of a
teacher’s instructional time is focused on the standards.
5. Curriculum is useful if it helps teachers balance their instruction
so ideas aren’t over- or underemphasized.
The alignments are summarized by course for the district’s
curriculum authors. The curriculum authors determine what
standards are over- or underemphasized and make appropriate
adjustments. These judgments can be made on a yearly basis,
taking into account the most recent state test scores, significant
task completion data, and suggestions from the course teachers
about improving the curriculum. The curriculum can be easily
rebalanced using this data so that the emphasis is always up to
date. For example, let’s say a district was not performing well in
the area of main idea. The curriculum authors rebalanced the
curriculum by emphasizing main idea in an increased number of
significant tasks to emphasize the concept throughout the
curriculum. Their efforts paid off: scores on main idea improved.
But scores still remained subpar on persuasive essays. The
curriculum authors again rebalanced the curriculum by not
 putting quite as much emphasis on main idea and by replacing
some significant tasks with more emphasis on persuasive
essays. They received reports back from the Web site that the
curriculum authors judged to be satisfactory in emphasizing
persuasive essay while maintaining an emphasis on main idea.
6. Curriculum is useful if it helps teachers and administrators know
that students have performed at high levels on instruction
aligned with standards and assessments.
As the significant tasks changed, so too did the content and
format assessments. By collecting the results of the
assessments aligned with main idea and persuasive essays,
teachers and administrators were able to determine how well
students were doing on those topics. Teachers also placed
comments about whether they felt the significant tasks were
strong enough.
7. Curriculum is useful and usable if the results of curriculum-
embedded assessments can be compared with the results of
state and standardized tests.
When the new state assessment results are returned to the
district, teachers, curriculum authors, and administrators can
see if high scores on the content assessments predicted the
results on the state assessments. If students scored well on the
content assessments but did not do well on the state
assessments, the curriculum authors could hypothesize. They
might wonder whether the content assessments were too easy,
or whether the content assessments were aligned to the
assessment processes used by the state. Curriculum authors
can examine the curriculum to see if enough significant tasks
addressed the content of the state assessments. Curriculum
authors can also determine if students had an adequate
opportunity for review of the content. Although many factors
affect the outcome of state tests, having a curriculum such as
the Balanced Curriculum in place provides the data necessary
to make an educated guess about how to address the problem.
8. Curriculum is useful if it brings teachers together to collaborate
on designing the curriculum and planning instruction.
 The Balanced Curriculum uses the best teachers in the district
to construct and modify the curriculum. These teachers
generally work in groups to design the curriculum, the units, and
the significant tasks, and to assign the alignments and generate
the assessments. Teamwork ensures that experienced teachers
share their best knowledge of the craft with others throughout
the district. Their knowledge of the craft is doubly powerful
because it has been aligned with the standards and balanced to
meet the needs of the district’s students. The Balanced
Curriculum encourages the institutionalization of knowledge of
the craft by incorporating it into the district’s significant tasks.
Curriculum development is also staff development.
9. Curriculum is useful if it has a structure for monitoring student
and teacher completion of the curriculum.
Teachers record the completion date for each significant task.
Reports from the Web site can tell teacher leaders, principals,
and central office staff (depending on their access level) how
teachers are doing in completing the significant tasks in the
curriculum. Principals and other administrators can become
instructional leaders by helping to solve problems presented by
teachers who fall behind or accelerate ahead of the begin and
end dates of units. Grade-level or course-level meetings can
then be exchanges of ideas about the best alternatives for
teaching significant tasks or discussions of the implications of
assessment results.
10. Curriculum is usable if it is revised yearly to take into account
the most recent performance on state or standardized tests (or
both) and teachers’ experience with the curriculum.
Criteria six and seven demonstrate how state assessment
results can be used to improve the curriculum. Curriculum
authors examine the state test data for performance patterns.
For areas of strong performance, curriculum authors consider
whether the curriculum should de-emphasize these areas so
that areas of need can use the time. For areas of weak
performance, the curriculum can be re-aligned so that more
emphasis is placed on these areas. Given that there may be
 many areas of weak performance, curriculum authors must
decide which areas are most important to emphasize in the next
year, taking into account what was emphasized in previous
years. The Balanced Curriculum uses data from teacher
comments, state tests, and results of content assessments to
inform curriculum authors’ judgments about changing the
curriculum.

WHAT DISTRICTS CAN DO—A CONCLUSION

#9–1

Design, write, and implement a curriculum for the district that

meets the ten criteria for a useful and usable curriculum.
This book demonstrates that alignment is important. Although
there are many ways for districts to address alignment, the most
powerful way is to design a curriculum structure that integrates
alignment processes into curriculum development efforts. The results
from the Balanced Curriculum suggest that district results on state
and standardized assessments improve dramatically when alignment
to state standards and assessments is a part of curriculum
development and implementation (see Figure 9.1). When
alignment’s power is captured through curriculum development and
implementation, student achievement improves.
 10
How the Balanced Curriculum Meets This
Book’s Recommendations for Districts

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

This book contains thirty-one recommendations for districts to use to

improve alignment. Those recommendations are summarized here
along with an explanation of how they can be structured and
addressed with curriculum design, using the Balanced Curriculum
model specifically. The Balanced Curriculum model provides districts
with a systematic framework for accomplishing most of these
recommendations. Each recommendation is labeled with a chapter
number first, then the number of the recommendation from that
chapter.

#2–1

Use Porter’s descriptors of instruction in math and science

for high school to catalogue what instruction occurs. Align the
descriptors with the state test specifications. Confirm that
coverage of tested topics improves achievement.
The Balanced Curriculum uses the alignment of significant tasks
to state standards and state assessments. Reports conducted by
representative teachers are provided on the Balanced Curriculum
Web site to confirm the alignment and balance. Because state
standards and assessment specifications have already been loaded
on the Web site, there is no need for generic descriptors of subject
areas.
#2–2

Use the Survey of the Enacted Curriculum as a staff

development process to compare instruction with standards
and state assessments.
The significant tasks provide the same type of data as the Survey
of the Enacted Curriculum, but they already are part of the
curriculum development process instead of an addition. The Survey
of the Enacted Curriculum could be used to augment the data from
the Web site on teacher completion of the significant tasks. Data
about completions could be triangulated with data from the Survey of
the Enacted Curriculum and the results of state tests to determine
areas where the curriculum needs to be refined.

#2–3

Rank test results by standards through released test items.

The alignment of significant tasks to assessment specifications
provides a way to know where the curriculum needs to be improved
based on the results of state testing. Because there is a curriculum
with significant tasks that all teachers for a course agree to teach
and assess, districts can be assured that the assessment
specifications are covered in the curriculum. Where the results aren’t
adequate, the significant tasks (the curriculum) can be modified and
strengthened.

#2–4

Provide teachers with opportunities to refine the scope and

sequence of courses (especially for science lecture and lab
activities), taking into account problematic areas of standards.
The units and the significant tasks define the scope and
sequence of the courses. The significant tasks are aligned with the
standards and assessment specifications. This means that once
problematic areas are identified, they can be redesigned or
refocused to take into account problematic areas of the standards
and assessments.

#3–1

Coverage isn’t enough—gather data on student practice

opportunities in textbooks.
This recommendation is particularly important for a district that is
textbook-driven, because the amount of practice provided for each
concept is important for promoting good scores on the state test. The
Balanced Curriculum is not driven by textbooks, rather by significant
tasks aligned to standards and assessments, thereby ensuring that
there will be enough practice opportunities for students related to the
state’s assessment.

#3–2

Conduct textbook alignment studies keyed to test results.

Again, the Balanced Curriculum is not textbook-driven but based
on significant tasks. The significant tasks are aligned to the test
specifications, making textbook analysis unnecessary. Textbooks
can be referenced in the “Resources” section of the Balanced
Curriculum Web site, so teachers know of the resources that can be
used to complete the units and significant tasks. Textbook alignment
studies can be completed to demonstrate that portions of the
textbook will assist in the completion of significant tasks.

#3–3

Preview textbook purchases by analyzing practice

opportunities for areas of weakness.
Textbooks are used as a resource rather than the actual
curriculum; the significant tasks ensure adequate coverage. If the
coverage is inadequate, as determined by test results or the
alignment reports, the significant tasks can be modified, expanded,
or eliminated. Textbook purchases need to be analyzed in terms of
how they support the accomplishment of the district’s significant
tasks. (It may be that as districts add attachments to the Balanced
Curriculum, the need for textbooks can be reduced, saving money
that can then be spent on staff development to modify and improve
the curriculum.)

#3–4

Survey teachers to determine the time spent on textbook

topics before establishing district guidelines of time to be spent
on topics.
The same activity can be part of the curriculum development
process, as teams of district teachers establish the units and write
the unit introductions. The curriculum development process provides
a way to constructively use this data and compare it to the district’s
strengths and needs on state assessments.

#4–1

Lobby the state to provide adequate information on standards

and alignment.
In order for results from statewide testing to be most useful,
states need to report results to pupils, schools, and districts based
on the major sections of the standards. States that do not provide
this information are leaving pupils, schools, and districts without the
data necessary to know where and how to improve their program.
States reporting only one score on a test, thus saving money through
shortchanging the test development process to include major
sections of the standards, cheat pupils, schools, and districts of
necessary data to use in improving their outcomes.
#4–2

Examine the alignment between the standards, the test

specifications, and the reports generated by the test.
This activity is covered when teacher teams align their significant
tasks to both the state standards and the state assessments, then
use the results to balance the curriculum, ensuring appropriate
emphasis given the test specifications and the standards in general.

#4–3

State professional organizations could replicate Webb’s study

using the WAT (Web Alignment Tool) and publish the results.
This recommendation would be helpful in the Balanced
Curriculum process, but it is not part of the curriculum design. States
should provide districts with this critical alignment information,
especially as it is easily generated in a valid and reliable fashion.

#4–4

School districts should require schools to use state testing

data to plan improvements.
The Balanced Curriculum is designed to be modified on a yearly
basis using the district and school results of state testing, teacher
comments on units and significant tasks from the Web site, and
results from the assessments of the significant tasks.

#4–5

Set multiyear goals for district performance on state tests.

The curriculum itself provides a way to institutionalize a district’s
best in the units, significant tasks, alignments, and assessments.
Through yearly goal setting, using feedback from teacher’s
comments, the district can reach a focused consensus on where
improvements need to be made—the significant tasks, the
curriculum-embedded assessments, or the balance in the alignment.

#4–6

Lobby the state to use Achieve’s Ten Criteria for Essential

Elements of a State’s Longitudinal Data System.
Curriculum will be more effective if a state’s test result information
system is structured in a way that provides districts with necessary
information (like results disaggregated by standards) so that districts
can have in-depth knowledge of how students performed in sub-
areas of the assessments. One individual score per tested area is
not specific enough to assist in improving curriculum.

#4–7

Backload the curriculum: Align released test items with

curriculum and textbooks.
The Balanced Curriculum aligns the significant tasks to state test
specifications, thus eliminating the need to backload the curriculum.

#5–1

Implement a mastery learning model districtwide.

Implementing a mastery learning model requires a curriculum
that specifies how time, content, and process will be integrated along
with the needed assessments for the formative and summative unit
assessments. It is possible to adapt the assessment specifications
for a mastery learning model to the Balanced Curriculum design.

#5–2
 Develop standard ways to periodically assess and reteach
students.
The Balanced Curriculum includes assessments for each
significant task and format (or end of unit) assessments that provide
feedback to students and a data structure by which reteaching, part
of the mastery learning model, can be provided.

#5–3

Provide feedback to students on a regular basis while

providing iterative ways for students to demonstrate
competence on learning tasks.
As stated above, the Balanced Curriculum does not explicitly
include this, but could be easily modified so that there were two
assessments for each significant task: one for assessing initial
mastery after the first instruction, and a final mastery test for those
students who did not pass the first mastery test. This would be given
after other instruction was provided by the teacher.

#6–1

Clarify benchmarks.
What the standards mean for instruction is clarified through the
development of the significant task. The significant task details both
the objective of instruction and the instructional process that the
teacher-author teams determine is the strongest approach. The
standards are clarified in the development and refinement of the
significant tasks.

#6–2

Unburden the curriculum.

Rather than approach standards as yet another set of goals to
accomplish, standards could be approached as a systematic way to
unburden the curriculum by identifying topics and concepts that are
not mentioned in the standards but take time to accomplish in the
curriculum. The alignment and balancing of the Balanced Curriculum
provide a way to unburden the curriculum during the curriculum
development process.

#6–3

Cut major topics.

Time can be saved by following the recommendations for cutting
topics in math and science as recommended by the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Such
recommendations can be addressed in the Balanced Curriculum
development process where courses and units are designed. Such
efforts will require additional staff development time, so curriculum
authors understand the problem.

#6–4

Trim technical vocabulary.

The design of significant tasks can be a way to trim technical
vocabulary, although not explicitly a part of the Balanced Curriculum
design.

#6–5

Reduce wasteful repetition.

In the Balanced Curriculum development process, courses, units,
and unit introductions are developed as a first step. Then curriculum
authors, usually veteran teachers from the district, meet across
courses to identify the gaps and repeated topics and concepts. Thus,
reducing wasteful repetition is built into the curriculum development
process.
#6–6

Learn to analyze curriculum materials.

Curriculum authors learn about developing units, significant
tasks, and assessments as well as the alignment process. These
employ all the skills needed to analyze curriculum materials.
Curriculum authors match curriculum materials to the significant
tasks.

#6–7

Align assessment to curriculum.

Many of these recommendations involve aligning assessment to
curriculum. The Balanced Curriculum’s structure, in which significant
tasks are aligned to standards and assessments and the
assessment of significant tasks is developed directly from the
significant task description, ensures alignment of assessment and
curriculum.

#6–8

Relate instructional units to strand maps.

One option for beginning curriculum development with the
Balanced Curriculum in math and science is to use AAAS strand
maps and circle the standards used in the units. Thus, adequate
alignment has been addressed in developing the units even before
the significant tasks have been developed.

#6–9

Create strand maps for other subject areas.

Strand maps can be created for other subject areas using
existing state standards. This provides curriculum authors with a way
to understand the standards before embarking on curriculum
development. The strand maps can be used as described above for
developing outlines of courses and units.

#7–1

Decide on fewer topics covered in more depth, particularly in

math.
The design of significant tasks is one way that teachers can
control the number of topics covered during a year. Significant tasks
can be designed to build on one another, thus providing appropriate
reinforcement and time to master important concepts.

#7–2

Develop districtwide tests, aligned to state assessments, to

gain data on students’ mastery of topics.
Districtwide assessment is already a part of the design of the
Balanced Curriculum. Each significant task is assessed in such a
way that results can be compared across classrooms. A format
assessment, administered once per unit, is designed to provide
students with practice with the format of the state’s standardized
assessment.

#7–3

Use test results to vary time and coverage of key topics.

You can determine whether to vary time and coverage of a topic
only if there is a curriculum consensus on the content that is most
important for students to cover and a plan (a curriculum) that spells
out how much time is needed per topic. As part of the Balanced
Curriculum development, curriculum author teams specify the units
and their begin and end dates. After one year of curriculum
implementation, results from state tests can be used to modify the
amount of time spent on topics (part of balancing the curriculum).

#9–1

Design, write, and implement a curriculum for the district that

meets the ten criteria for a useful and usable curriculum.
By now, you should be convinced that a curriculum that meets
the above definition is the smartest way to combine many of these
alignment strategies into a systematic approach specifying what
students should know and be able to do so that teachers have the
guidance to improve student achievement. There are other ways to
structure a curriculum design. Let the dialogue begin.
 11
Summary of Alignment Research and
Recommendations

This chapter summarizes the book, presents all the research cited
in the book on the alignment matrix, and presents two major
conclusions based on the research.

SUMMARY OF THE BOOK

After an introductory chapter, the book examined the alignment side

of curriculum alignment. The first four chapters reviewed the
alignment research around three major areas: instruction, textbooks,
and tests. These chapters emphasized the power of alignment of
instruction, textbooks, and tests to other dimensions of schooling
(written, taught, and tested curriculum) included in the alignment
matrix. This established alignment as a powerful concept to be
incorporated into a design for schooling.
In Part II, we extended our investigation into the curriculum part
of curriculum alignment by examining curriculum systems such as
mastery learning, Project 2061 for science and mathematics, and the
research findings from a portion of the TIMSS and Schmidt et al.
(2001). Together these curriculum systems demonstrate that the way
curriculum is structured and organized has an effect on student
performance.
Part III opened by investigating a definition of curriculum that
includes alignment and posed ten criteria for a useful and usable
curriculum that specifically incorporates aspects of alignment. After
proposing the definition and criteria, we explored how the Balanced
Curriculum (one way to structure curriculum while taking in many of
alignment’s aspects) meets the proposed definition of curriculum and
meets the ten criteria for a useful and usable curriculum. This section
demonstrated that appropriately structured curriculum is one way to
capture alignment’s power to improve student performance. The
work of Schmidt et al. (2001) provided the research validation for this
assertion. The improved test scores of district’s that did a good job
implementing the Balanced Curriculum demonstrate the power of an
aligned curriculum to improve student performance on high-stakes
tests.

SUMMARY OF THE BOOK’S CHAPTERS

What follows is a summary of each study and conclusions for each

chapter (except Chapter 1 Introduction to Curriculum Alignment).

Chapter 2 Alignment and Instruction: Summary of

Research

Porter et al. (1994) in the Reform Up Close study found that the
content of instruction makes a difference in achievement.
Blank et al. (2001) found that alignment research is difficult to
apply in urban settings because of central office indifference and
teacher turnover. Where implementation was high, instruction was
more closely aligned to state standards than in control schools.
Implementation is a key variable in focusing the power of alignment.
McGehee and Griffith (2001) showed that improved achievement
is a result of staff development on aligning instruction to state
standards; however, implementation data was not part of the study.
DiBiase, Warren, and Wagner (2002) examined an effort to align
chemistry lab instruction to lectures and national standards. Students
were randomly assigned to groups taking the old course and
students studying the new course. Student achievement improved
for those taking the newly aligned course over the achievement of
those taking the old course.
Chapter 2 Conclusions

Across the studies in this chapter, implementation and alignment

of instruction and are two key variables that affect results. Time
spent on content is a predictor of student achievement.

Chapter 3 Alignment and Textbooks: Summary of

Research

Freeman et al. (1983) demonstrated that textbooks are

inadequately aligned to standardized tests by showing that one-half
to two-thirds of the topics covered by the standardized tests don’t
have twenty practice problems in the textbooks.
Howson (1995) concluded that U.S. textbooks cover over three
hundred topics, too many to provide students with enough practice to
understand the concepts, and little guidance for teachers as to which
concepts should be emphasized the most.
Schmidt et al. (2001) showed that teachers use textbooks as one
clue to determine what to emphasize. If the textbook covers a topic
in depth, then teachers’ will gear their instruction on that topic to be
in depth.
Studies of textbooks conducted by the American Association for
the Advancement of Science (AAAS) showed the alignment between
quality instruction and the guidance provided by the textbooks to be
of generally poor quality in math and science textbooks for middle
and high school.
Goodman et al (1987) found misalignment between the content
of reading textbooks for elementary school and good instruction,
tests and the textbooks, and a lack of comprehension instruction.
Moss-Mitchell (1998) studied one large school district where the
district had analyzed the textbook and provided instructional material
for teachers on topics not covered by the textbook but presented in
the state test. Student achievement improved as a result.
 Price-Baugh’s study (1997) showed that the number of practice
items correlated to student scores on a state assessment.

Chapter 3 Conclusions

Textbooks aren’t perfect: they may not be well aligned to

standards and state or standardized assessments and may not have
appropriate directions for teachers who want to deliver high-quality
instruction. Yet textbooks are used by teachers to help determine
what topics to emphasize. Two studies indicated that when a district
can determine what textbooks emphasize and align this to the state
assessment, while providing extra material for content not covered,
student achievement can improve.

Chapter 4 Alignment of Standards and Standardized

Tests: Summary of Research

Webb (1997) demonstrated a way to validly and reliably align state

tests to state standards. Based on his analysis of four unnamed
states, alignment ranged from acceptable to unacceptable. Webb’s
work set the standard for reliably and validly judging alignment
between standards and tests.
Browder et al. (2004) showed another way to determine
alignment of standards to assessments and demonstrated that
special education tests were at times aligned to state standards.
Wise et al. (2006) and Wise and Alt (2006) used standards from
Delaware to show how to ensure vertical alignment of standards
between grade levels. Results indicated where the vertical alignment
of standards in Delaware could be improved.
Quellmalz et al. (2006) used an alignment process to refine the
meaning of a standard on science inquiry and showed how an
expanded definition of science inquiry aligned with the items of three
large-scale assessments, pointing out how the assessments could
be structured to better assess science inquiry.
 Bowe and Kingsbury (2007) and the National Center for
Educational Statistics Study (2007) demonstrated that state tests are
not equivalent, making the requirement of No Child Left Behind for
100% of the state’s students to pass state tests by 2014 problematic.
English and Steffy (2001) suggest backloading the curriculum to
include assessment items and instruction on those items that are
aligned to the state test. No research validation was provided.
Next a model was proposed that showed what information a state
should provide districts so that districts can align their curriculum to
the state standards and assessments.

Chapter 4 Conclusions

The alignment between state assessments and state standards is

problematic, because the standards cover all the important concepts
students should know and be able to do, while state tests are
constrained by testing time and can test only a limited number of
concepts. There are now valid and reliable methods for determining
the alignment between state assessments and state standards that
can be used to improve this problematic condition. States should
provide districts with data so that they are able to improve their
instruction based on test data.

Chapter 5 Alignment, Reteaching, and Mastery Learning:

Summary of Research

What the Bloom model showed us is that when curriculum,

instruction, and lesson planning are aligned with curriculum-
embedded tests (and there is a teach, test, reteach, test instructional
model in place), student results can improve dramatically in the
laboratory and in schools and districts that implement the model well.
Cohen’s (1987) research demonstrated that when curriculum-
embedded tests are aligned to instruction, student performance
improves.
 Wishnick (1989) showed that when curriculum-embedded tests
are aligned with standardized tests, results improve and
socioeconomic status, gender, and teacher are not important in
predicting results.

Chapter 5 Conclusions

Mastery learning is a theory that has proven itself in lab settings

and the real world of school districts. For mastery learning to be
implemented, there needs to be alignment between instruction and
assessment and a teach, test, reteach, test instructional model. Well
implemented models of mastery learning contain many alignment
components.

Chapter 6 Project 2061 of the American Association for

the Advancement of Science (AAAS): Summary of
Research and Conclusions

Based on AAAS’s analysis, which relied on logical criteria rather

than research studies, the following strategies can be used by
districts:

Clarify benchmarks.
Unburden the curriculum.
Cut major topics.
Trim technical vocabulary.
Reduce wasteful repetition.
Learn to analyze curriculum materials.
Align assessment to curriculum.
Relate instructional units to strand maps.
Create strand maps for other subject areas.

Chapter 7 Alignment and the TIMSS Analysis: Summary

of Research and Conclusions
 Schmidt et al. (2001) showed that the content of a country’s
curriculum affects student achievement in that country. This research
validates curriculum as a crucial instrument in improving student
achievement, as a school district has ultimate control over what
students are taught and learn. If the curriculum is aligned with the
assessment, results improve.

Chapter 8 Criteria for a Useful and Usable Curriculum: A

Summary

Chapter 8 focused on criteria for curriculum design that

encompasses many alignment concepts discussed in previous
chapters. A definition of curriculum was proposed: Curriculum is the
district’s written plan incorporating aspects of time use, content, and
process aligned to standards and assessments that establishes a
focus for instruction, assessment, staff development and
management so student achievement improves. This definition
meets the ten criteria for a useful and usable curriculum.

Chapter 9 The Balanced Curriculum Model: A Summary

The Balanced Curriculum was presented as one model that meets

the definition of curriculum proposed in Chapter 8 and that
incorporates the many aspects of alignment explained in this book.
Results from ten years of implementing the Balanced Curriculum in
districts throughout the country indicate that student achievement will
improve when the curriculum is developed using the Balanced
Curriculum model and there are data suggesting high levels of
implementation.

Chapter 10 How the Balanced Curriculum Meets This

Book’s Recommendations
 The recommendations for improving alignment made throughout
this book are gathered in Chapter 10 alongside an explanation of
how the Balanced Curriculum Model addresses each
recommendation.

Chapter 11 Summary of Alignment Research and

Recommendations

After this summary of chapters, the book will conclude by placing

all the research presented in the book on the alignment matrix.

THE RESEARCH POSTED ON THE ALIGNMENT MATRIX

All of the research cited in this book is placed on the alignment
matrix in Figure 11.1, using the author codes below. Author codes
are assigned by chapter, covering the major authors mentioned.

Figure 11.1 The Complete Alignment Matrix

The research placed on the alignment matrix shows that:

Most of the possible alignment areas have been studied. Lesson

plans and student assignments are the least studied areas.
Alignment between state standards and standardized or state
tests is the most studied relationship, as findings in this area will
have the most effect.
As researchers have used many different definitions of
curriculum focused around textbooks, standards, and
instruction, there is a lack of research on how specific
curriculum design or structure affects alignment and
achievement, although the Balanced Curriculum model takes
into account many of the dimensions of alignment and has
demonstrated improved student achievement.
 More research is needed that is similar to DiBiase, Warren, and
Wagner (2002) which was an excellent case study with random
assignment of students which tested out two models (one
aligned and one unaligned) for a chemistry course.

MAJOR FINDINGS FROM THE ALIGNMENT RESEARCH

There are two major findings from the alignment research reported in
this book; commentary on each finding follows.

Findings

1. Alignment improves outcomes.

2. Alignment is a powerful research-based tool to incorporate into
the design of the written, taught, and tested curriculum that
guides instruction, assessment, and staff development.

Discussion

1. Alignment improves outcomes.

Most of the areas on the alignment matrix, when aligned to other
areas, have been associated with improved results. This
demonstrates that alignment is a powerful tool for improving
student achievement and leveling the playing field by reducing
the power of socioeconomic status, race, gender, teacher
assignment, and school size as predictors of student
achievement. Well-designed instruction in which there is
alignment among the written, taught, and tested curriculum can
overcome traditional predictors of student achievement. Good
instructional design can overcome students’ backgrounds.
This book argues that districts are the vehicle to carry this
change by deciding what needs to be taught and aligning the
taught, tested, and written curriculum to the states’ standards
 and assessments. The Balanced Curriculum is proof that paying
attention to alignment in curriculum structure, design, and
implementation results in dramatic increases in test scores over
a short period of time. This leads to the second conclusion.
2. Alignment is a powerful tool to incorporate into the design of the
written, taught, and tested curriculum that guides instruction,
assessment, and staff development.

Without alignment, the district’s curriculum will not be coordinated

with state standards and assessments, leading to random and
uncoordinated efforts at improving student achievement. Some
studies show how the written curriculum from a district can be
structured to improve student achievement, such as the Balanced
Curriculum process (Squires, 2005a) and the work of Schmidt et al.
(2001), which demonstrates that when national curriculums are
compared, results vary with the alignment among standards, the
TIMSS assessment, teacher use of time, and textbook content.
In part, this is because district curriculums are so variable that
there is little curriculum infrastructure that allows for comparison
across districts. Because many districts don’t realize that curriculum
can be one way to systematize improvement of student
achievement, districts typically adopt a potpourri of different
programs and approaches, which may not fit together from a
student’s or teacher’s perspective. Then “initiative fatigue” sets in as
programs are adopted before previous adoptions can be fully
implemented.
Districts can control their own destiny only if they have a way to
plan and deliver what students should know and be able to do—the
district curriculum. Districts realize that curriculum work can
determine whether the parts and pieces of past program adoptions fit
together into a coherent whole. The district curriculum provides a
way to manage our expectations and resist the latest and greatest
program if it does not fit within the existing structure.
What does a successful written district curriculum look like, one
that is powerful enough to improve student achievement? What are
its components? Why does it work? How can we make sure it is well
implemented? We need to examine curriculum models, such as the
Balanced Curriculum and others, that meet the criteria for a useful
and usable curriculum so that we can understand how those models
work. Some models will be more powerful than others.
The research cited in this book makes a case for alignment being
an important aspect of curriculum design and poses many different
ways that districts can tap some of alignment’s power. Many
curriculum designs make limited use of alignment (see for example
Erickson [2001], Jacobs, [2004], and Wiggins & McTighe [2005]), yet
they are very popular. Could these designs be even more powerful if
they included aligning curriculum with standards and assessments?
The Balanced Curriculum, on the other hand, explicitly uses the
power of alignment and has gotten dramatic results in districts that
have designed and implemented the curriculum using the Balanced
Curriculum design. I am not arguing one design’s superiority over
others, rather, that there needs to be a dialogue about design and
the components of various curriculum systems. What allows them to
work to produce improved achievement? Does this improvement
have anything to do with other factors, such a district type (i.e.,
urban, suburban, or rural)? There must be design principles to follow
toward creating a validated curriculum system that works in many
districts. Districts are desperately looking for such a curriculum
structure to deal with improvement pressures from No Child Left
Behind. The definition of curriculum put forward in this book is an
attempt to get the dialogue started.
 Resource

Ten Criteria for Structuring a Useful and

Usable Curriculum

1. Curriculum is useful and usable if it helps teachers use time to

address content and pace instruction appropriately.
2. Curriculum is usable if the content is structured so that teachers
know what is most important to teach and outlines how to teach
important content.
3. Curriculum is usable if teachers have the flexibility to use their
own creativity when planning instruction.
4. Curriculum is useful if it focuses teacher instruction on the
standards.
5. Curriculum is useful if it helps teachers balance their instruction
so ideas aren’t over- or underemphasized.
6. Curriculum is useful if it helps teachers and administrators know
that students have performed at high levels on instruction
aligned with standards and assessments.
7. Curriculum is useful and usable if the results of curriculum-
embedded assessments can be compared with results of state
and standardized tests.
8. Curriculum is useful if it brings teachers together to collaborate
on designing the curriculum and planning instruction.
 9. Curriculum is useful if it has a structure for monitoring student
and teacher completion of the curriculum.
10. Curriculum is usable if it is revised yearly to take into account
the most recent performance on state or standardized tests (or
both) and teachers’ experience with the curriculum.

The rubric should help you to make systematic and thoughtful

decisions about the structure of the curriculum for your district. I
recommend tackling this task with a districtwide planning or steering
committee prior to writing the curriculum. Coming to a consensus on
the most appropriate design will build your capacity to implement the
curriculum. After describing your curriculum, rate your design using
the ten criteria for structuring a useful and usable curriculum along
with the accompanying rubrics. You can download this work sheet
and the criteria from the Balanced Curriculum Web site
(www.balancedcurriculum.com).

RATE YOUR DESIGN

Directions: Now that you have put your design together, rate the
design for usefulness and usability employing the following rubrics.

Ten Criteria for Structuring a Useful and Usable

Curriculum

Curriculum is useful and usable if it helps teachers use time to

address content and pace instruction appropriately.
Curriculum is usable if the content is structured so that teachers
know what is most important to teach and outlines how to teach
important content.

Curriculum is usable if teachers have the flexibility to use their

own creativity when planning instruction.

Curriculum is useful if it focuses teacher instruction on the

standards.
Curriculum is useful if it helps teachers balance their instruction
so ideas aren’t over- or underemphasized.

Curriculum is useful if it helps teachers and administrators know

that students have performed at high levels on instruction
aligned with standards and assessments.
Curriculum is useful and usable if the results of curriculum-
embedded assessments can be compared with results of state
and standardized tests.

Curriculum is useful if it brings teachers together to collaborate

on designing the curriculum and planning instruction.
Curriculum is useful if it has a structure for monitoring student
and teacher completion of the curriculum.

Curriculum is usable if it is revised yearly to take into account

the most recent performance on state or standardized tests (or
both) and teachers’ experience with the curriculum.
Copyright © 2005 by David A. Squires. All rights reserved. Reprinted from Aligning and
Balancing the Standards-Based Curriculum by David A. Squires. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press, 2005, www.corwinpress.com. Reproduction authorized only for the local
school site that has purchased this book.
 References

Achieve, Inc. (2001) Creating a longitudinal data system: Using data

to improve student achievement. Retrieved March 3, 2006 from
http://www.achieve.org/dstore.nsf/Lookup/DQC_paper/$file/DQC
_paper.pdf
Ainsworth, L., & Viegut, D. (2006). Common formative assessments:
How to connect standards-based instruction and assessment.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Alexson, R., & Kemnitz, C. (2003). Curriculum articulation and
transitioning student success: Where are we going wrong and
what lessons have we learned? Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Association of American Geographers, New
Orleans, LA.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989).
Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993).
Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University
Press.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001). Atlas
for science literacy Volume 1. New York.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2007). Atlas
for science literacy Volume 2. New York.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2001).
Designs for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ananda, S. (2003). Achieving Alignment. Leadership 33(1), 18–21.
Anderson, L. W. (1973). Time and School Learning. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. University of Chicago, IL.
Anderson, L. W. (2002). Curricular alignment: A re-examination.
Theory into Practice, 41(4), 255–260.
Anderson, L. (2005). Objectives, evaluation, and the improvement of
education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 31(2–3), 102.
Arlin, M. N. (1973) Learning rate and learning rate variance under
mastery learning conditions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of Chicago, IL.
Billig, S. H., Jaime, I. I., & Abrams, A. (2005). Closing the
achievement gap: Lessons from successful schools. Washington,
DC: U. S. Department of Education.
Binor, S. (1974). The relative effectiveness of mastery learning
strategies in second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of Chicago, IL.
Blank, R. K., Porter, A., & Smithson, J. (2001). New tools for
analyzing teaching, curriculum and standards in mathematics &
science: Results from survey of Enacted Curriculum Project.
Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Blank, R. K. (2002). Using surveys of enacted curriculum to advance
evaluation of instruction in relation to standards. Peabody Journal
of Education, 77(4), 86–120.
Blank, R. K. (2004). Data on enacted curriculum study: Summary of
findings. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Block, J. H. (1970). The effects of various levels of performance on
selected cognitive, affective and time variables. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. University of Chicago.
Block, J. H. (Ed.). (1971). Mastery Learning. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Block, J. H. (1974). Mastery learning in the classroom: An overview
of recent research. In J. H. Block (Ed.), School, society, and
mastery learning (pp. 28–69). New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Block, J. H., & Burns, R. B. (1976). Mastery learning. In L. S.
Shulman (Ed.), Review of research in education. Itasca, IL:
Peacock.
Block, J. H., Efthim, H. E., & Burns, R. B. (1989). Building effective
mastery learning schools. New York: Longman.
Bloom, B. S. (1976). Human characteristics and school learning.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bowe, B. P., & Kingsbury, G. G. (2007, April). Comparison of four
state performance standard alignment methods. Paper presented
at the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Browder, D., Flowers, C., Ahigrim-Deizell, L., Karvonen, M.,
Spooner, F., & Algozzine, R. (2004). The alignment of alternate
assessment content with academic and functional curricula.
Journal of Special Education, 30(4), 211–223.
Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teacher’s College
Record, 64, 723–733.
Clarke, N., Stow, S., Ruebling, C., & Kayona, F. (2006). Developing
standards-based curricula and assessments: Lessons from the
field. Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues
and Ideas, 79(6), 258.
Cohen, S. A., & Stover, G. (1981). Effects of teaching sixth grade
students to modify the variables in math word problems. Reading
Research Quarterly, 16, 175–200.
Cohen, S. A. (1987). Instructional alignment: Searching for a magic
bullet. Educational Researcher, 16, 16–19.
Cook, G. H. (2006). Aligning English language proficiency tests to
English language learning standards. In Aligning assessment to
guide the learning of all students. State collaborative on
assessment and student standards. Washington, DC: Council of
Chief State School Officers.
Connecticut State Department of Education. (1999). Mathematics
Connecticut Mastery Test Third Generation Mathematics
Handbook, Part 1. Retrieved Feb. 1, 2008, from
http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/cwp/view.asp?a=2618&q=320878.
Council of Chief State School Officers, (May, 2000). Using data on
enacted curriculum in mathematics and science: Sample results
from a study of classroom practices and subject content.
Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2002). Using data on
enacted curriculum—A guide for professional development.
Washington, DC: Rolf K. Blank.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2003). Using data on
enacted curriculum: A professional development and technical
 assistance model for using the Survey of Enacted Curriculum.
Retrieved August 21, 2005, from
http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/DECpdoverviewYR3Reprt.
ppt#54
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2005). Surveys of enacted
curriculum. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School
Officers. Retrieved August 21, 2005 from
http://www.ccsso.org/projects/Alignment_Analysis.
Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern
test theory. New York: Harcourt Brace & Jovanovich.
Cronin, J. (2004). Aligning the NWEA RIT scale with the California
Standards Test (CST). Lake Oswego: Northwest Evaluation
Association.
DiBiase, W. J., Warren, J., & Wagner, E. P. (2002). Aligning general
chemistry laboratory with a lecture at a large university. School
Science and Mathematics, 102, 158–171.
Elia, J. S. I. (1986). An alignment experiment in vocabulary
instruction: Varying instructional practice and test item formats to
measure transfer with low SES fourth graders. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. University of San Francisco, CA.
English, F. W. (1992). Deciding what to teach and test: Developing,
aligning, and auditing the curriculum. In F. W. English (Ed.).
Successful schools: Guidebooks to effective educational
leadership: Vol. 4. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
English, F. W., & Steffy, B. E. (2001). Deep curriculum alignment:
Creating a level playing field for all children on high-stakes tests
of educational accountability. Lanaham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Erickson, H. L. (2001). Stirring the head, heart, and soul: Redefining
curriculum and instruction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Press.
Evans, S. M. (2002). Aligning to state standards. Science Teacher
69(3), 54–57.
Ewing, T. (2003). Aligning instruction to standards: A local approach.
Leadership, 32(3), 30–31.
Fahey, P. A. (1986). Learning transfer in main ideas instruction:
Effects of instructional alignment on main idea test scores.
 Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of San Francisco,
CA.
Floden, R. E., Porter, A. C., Schmidt, W.H., Freeman, D. J., &
Schwille, J. R. (1980). Responses to curriculum pressures: A
policy-capturing study of teacher decisions about content. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 129–141.
Freeman, D., Kuhs, T., Porter, A., Floden, R., Schmidt, W., &
Schwille, J. (1983). Do textbooks and tests define a national
curriculum in elementary school mathematics? Elementary
School Journal, 83, 501–513.
Gentile, J. R., & Lalley, J. P. (2003). Standards and mastery learning.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Gamoran, A., Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., White, P. A. (1997, Winter).
Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving
learning opportunities for low-achieving, low income youth.
Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 325–338.
Goodman, K. S., Shannon, P., Freeman, Y. S., & Murphy, S. (1987).
Report card on basal readers. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen.
Groves, F. H. (1995). Science vocabulary load of selected secondary
science textbooks. School Science and Mathematics, 95(5), 231–
235.
Guskey, T. R., & Pigott, T. D. (1988). Research on group-based
mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Educational Research, 81, 197–216.
Hall, R., (2002). Aligning learning, teaching and assessment using
the web: An evaluation of pedagogical approaches. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 33(2), 149–158.
Howson, G. (1995). Mathematics textbooks: A comparative study of
grade 8 texts. Vancouver, Canada: Pacific Education Press.
Jacobs, H. H. (1997). Mapping the big picture; Integrating Curriculum
& Assessment K–12. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
Jacobs, H. H. (Ed.). (2004). Getting results with curriculum mapping.
Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Kendall, J. S., & Marzano, R. J. (1997a). A comprehensive guide to
designing standards-based districts, schools and classrooms.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Kendall, J. S., & Marzano, R. J. (1997b). Content knowledge: A
compendium of standards and benchmarks for K–12 education.
Denver, CO: MCREL Lab.
Kozar, M. L. (1984). Effects of varying degrees of instructional
alignment in post-treatment tests on mastery learning tasks of
fourth grade children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of San Francisco, CA.
Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1990).
Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis.
Review of Educational Research, 60(2), 265–269.
Kulm, G., Roseman, J., & Treistman, M. (1999). A benchmarks-
based approach to textbook evaluation. Science Books & Films,
3,5,147–153.
La Marca, P. M. (2001). Alignment of standards and assessments as
an accountability criterion. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 7(21).
Levin, T. (1975). The effect of content prerequisite and process-
oriented experiences on application ability in the learning of
probability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of
Chicago, IL.
Levine, D. U. and associates. (1985). Improving student
achievement through mastery learning programs. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Lawson, A., Bordingnon, C., & Nagy, P. (2002). Matching the Grade
8 TIMSS item pool to the Ontario curriculum. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 28(1), 87–102.
Malagon, M. H., Rosenberg, M. B., & Winter, P. C. (2006).
Developing aligned performance level descriptors for the English
Language Development Assessment K–2 inventories. In Aligning
assessment to guide the learning of all students. State
collaborative on assessment and student standards: Washington,
DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Manzo, K. K. Reading curricula don’t make cut for federal review.
Education Week. Retrieved August 15, 2007 from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2007/08/15/01whatworks_
web.h27.html?tmp=267034593
Maryland State Higher Education Commission. (2004). Report of the
K–16 Workgroup: Highly Qualified Teacher Committee, Highly
Qualified Administrator Committee, Standards and Curriculum
Alignment Committee. Maryland Partnership for Teaching and
Learning in K–16. Annapolis, MD: Maryland Higher Education
Commission.
Marca, P. M., Redfield, D., & Winter, P. C. (2001). Standards and
state assessment systems: A guide to alignment. Washington,
DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
McGehee, J. J., & Griffith, L. K. (2001). Large-scale assessments
combined with curriculum alignment: Agents of change. Theory
into Practice, 40(2), 137–144.
Moss-Mitchell, F. (1998). The effects of curriculum alignment on the
mathematics achievement of third-grade students as measured
by the Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Implication for educational
administrators. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Clark
University, Atlanta, GA.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Mapping 2005 state
proficiency standards onto the NAEP scales (NCES 2007-482).
U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum
and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA:
Author.
National Research Council, (1996). National Science Education
Standards: Observe, interact, change, learn. Washington, DC:
Author.
Popham, J. W. (2001). The truth about testing: An educator’s call to
action. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Porter, A. C., Kirst, M. W., Osthoff, E. J., Smithson, J. L., &
Schneider, S. A. (1993). Reform up close: An analysis of high
school mathematics and science classrooms (Final report to the
 National Science Foundation on Grant No. SAP-8953446 to the
Consortium for Policy Research in Education). Madison, WI:
Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring content of instruction: Uses in
research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3–14.
Porter, A. C., Kirst, M. W., Osthoff, E., Smithson, J. L., & Schneider,
S. (1994) Reform of high school mathematics and science and
opportunity to learn. Consortium for Policy Research in Education
Policy Briefs. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Consortium
for Policy Research in Education.
Porter, A. C., & Smithson J. L. (2001). Defining, developing, and
using curriculum indicators (CPRE Research Report Series RR-
048). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education,
University of Pennsylvania.
Porter. A. C., & Smithson, J. L. (2002). Alignment of assessments,
standards, and instruction using curriculum indicator data. Paper
presented at National Council on Measurement in Education
annual meeting New Orleans, LA.
Posner, G. J., & Rudnitsky, A. N. (2006). Course design: A guide to
curriculum development for teachers. Boston: Pearson
Education, Inc.
Price-Baugh, R. (1997). Correlation of textbook alignment with
student achievement scores. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Baylor University, Waco, TX.
Quellmalz, E., Kreikemeier, P., Haydel DeBarger, A., & Haertel, G.
(March, 2006).
A Study of the Alignment of the NAEP, TIMSS, and New Standards
Science Assessments with the inquiry abilities in the National
Science Standards. Center for Technology in Learning, SRI
International. Paper presented at the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Rabinowitz, S., Roeber, E., Schroeder, S., & Sheinker, J. (January,
2006) Creating aligned standards and assessment systems.
Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
Reeves, D. B. (2006) The learning leader: How to focus school
improvement for better results. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Resnick, L. B., Rothman, R., Slattery, J. B., & Vranek, J. L. (2003).
Benchmarking and Alignment of Standards and Testing.
Educational Assessment 9(1&2), 1–27.
Robitaille, D. F., Schmidt, W. H., Raizen, S., McKnight C., Britton, E.,
& Nicol, C. (1993). Curriculum frameworks for mathematics and
science (TIMSS Monograph No. 1). Vancouver, Canada: Pacific
Educational Press.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H. C., Wiley,
D. E., Cogan, L. S., & Wolfe, R. G. (2001). Why schools matter: A
cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2003). Success for all/Roots &
wings: Summary of research on achievement outcomes. (Report
no. 41 [revised]). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the
Education of Students Placed at Risk. Retrieved September,
2003 from
http://www.successforall.net/_images/pdfs/SummaryofResearch-
2003.pdf.
Squires, D. A. (1986, April). Curriculum development with a mastery
learning framework. A paper presented at American Educational
Research Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
Squires, D. A. (2005a). Aligning and balancing the standards-based
curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Squires, D. A. (2005b) The relationship between aligned curriculum
and student achievement. Charleston, WV: Edvantia, Inc.
Squires, D. A. (2005c) Curriculum alignment: Literature review.
Charleston, WV: Appalachian Educational Lab.
Stallings, J., & Stipek, D. (1986). Research on early childhood and
elementary teaching programs. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook
of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 727–753). New York:
Macmillan.
Stern, L., & Roseman, J. E. (2001). Textbook alignment. Science
Teacher 68(7), 52–56.
Tallarico, I. (1984). Effects of ecological factors on elementary school
student performance on norm-referenced standardized tests:
Non-reading behaviors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of San Francisco, CA.
Tindall, G. (2006). Alignment of alternate assessments using the
Webb system. In Aligning assessment to guide the learning of all
students: Six reports. State collaborative on assessment and
student standards: Washington, DC: Council of Chief State
School Officers.
Tomlinson, C. A., Kaplan, S. N., Renzulli, J. S., Purcell, J., Leppien,
J., & Burns, D. (2002). The parallel curriculum: A design to
develop high potential and challenge high-ability learners.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Tyler, R. W. (1977). The organization of learning experiences. In A.
A. Bellack & H. M. Kliebard (Eds.), Curriculum and evaluation
(pp. 45–55). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan Publishing.
U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Closing the achievement gap:
Lessons from successful schools. Washington, DC: Author.
Walberg, H. J. (1988, March). Synthesis of research on time and
learning. Educational Leadership, pp. 76–84.
Webb, N. L. (January, 1997). WISE Brief: Determining Alignment of
Expectations and Assessments in Mathematics and Science
Education Retrieved February 22, 2006, from
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/archive/nise/Publications/Briefs/Vol_1
_No_2/NISE_Brief_Vol_1_No_2.pdf].
Webb, N. L. (1999). Alignment of science and mathematics
standards and assessments in four states (Research Monograph
No. 18). Madison, WI: National Institute for Science Education
and Council of Chief State School Officers.
Webb, N. L, Alt, M., Ely, R., Cormier, M., & Vesperman, B. (2006).
The web alignment tool: Development, refinement, and
dissemination. In Aligning assessment to guide the learning of all
students: Six reports. State Collaborative on Assessment and
Student Standards: Washington, DC: Council of Chief State
School Officers.
Wiggins, G,. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. (2nd
Ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Wise, L., & Alt, M. (2006). Assessing vertical alignment. In Aligning
assessment to guide the learning of all student: Six reports. State
collaborative on assessment and student standards: Washington,
DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Wise, L.L., Zhang, L.,
Winter, P., Taylor, L., & Becke, D. E. (2006). Vertical alignment of
grade-level expectations for student achievement: Report of a
pilot study. In Aligning assessment to guide the learning of all
students. State collaborative on assessment and student
standards: Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School
Officers.
Wishnick, K. T. (1989). Relative effects on achievements scores of
SES, gender, teacher effect and instructional alignment: A study
of alignment’s power in mastery learning. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation. University of San Francisco, CA.
Yager, R. E. (1983). The importance of terminology on teaching K–
12 science. Jounal of Research on Science Teaching, 20, 577–
588.
 Index

Achieve, Inc., 50
Achievement and alignment
affected by alignment strategy, 156, 160
affected by assessment data, 161
affected by curriculum modification, 163
affected by curriculum structure, 155–156
affected by implementation, 162
ACT, 6
Algina, J., 58
Alignment
See also Achievement and alignment; Balanced Curriculum
defined, 4–6, 53
problems, 6–7
research findings, 186–188
Web Alignment Tool (WAT), 57
Alignment matrix
curriculum and, 140
description of, 7–8
instruction and, 19
mastery learning and, 95
Project 2061 and, 110
research on, 185–186
standardized tests and, 50
textbooks and, 40
TIMSS and, 132
Alignment Measurement Scale (AMS), 97–99
Alt, M., 57, 59, 182
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 28,
33–37, 105, 181
See also Project 2061
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD),
76
Atlas of Science Literacy, Volumes 1 and 2, 106, 107, 109, 118–124

Backloading curriculum, 66
Balanced Curriculum
achievement and alignment affected by alignment strategy, 156,
160
achievement and alignment affected by assessment data, 161
achievement and alignment affected by curriculum modification,
163
achievement and alignment affected by curriculum structure,
155–156
achievement and alignment affected by implementation, 162
alignment to standards and assessment, 156–160
assessing progress, 160–161
components of, 154
courses, time-bound units, and significant tasks, 154–155
criteria for creating a useful and usable, 163–167
examples of districts using, 150–154
implementing, 161–162
modifying, 162–163
summary of, 169–177, 184
Web site, xxv–xxvi
what districts can do, 167
Balance of representation, 53, 60
Becke, D. E., 59
Benchmarks for Science Literacy, 106, 107, 108, 111, 112–114
Blank, R. K., 12–15, 180
Block, J. H., 93
Blooms, B. S., 90–96, 183
Bowe, B. P., 66–67, 182
Browder, D., 57–58, 182
Burns, R. B., 93

Carroll, J. B., 90
Categorical congruence, 53, 60
Cognitive demand, 10
Cohen, S. A., 96, 183
Content Knowledge: A Compendium of Standards and Benchmarks
for K–12 Education (Kendall and Marzano), 50–52
Content validation, 58
Cormier, M., 57
Council of Chief State School Officers, 16, 18, 76
Course Design (Posner and Rudnitsky), 4, 154
Crocker, L., 58
Curriculum
See also Balanced Curriculum
aligned to standards and assessments, 144
alignment matrix, 140
common definition of, 141–143
connected to assessment and staff
development and management, 144–145
criteria for creating a useful and usable, 146–147, 184, 189–194
district’s written plan, 143
many meanings of, 140–141
standards-based definition of, 143–146
student achievement improvements, 145–146
time use, content, and process, 144
Curriculum alignment
See also Alignment; Balanced Curriculum
benefits of, 3
taught, 8
tested, 8
written, 7
Curriculum Mapping (Jacobs), 4, 154
Data on enacted curriculum (DEC) model, 17–18
Depth of knowledge, 53, 54, 60
Designs for Science Literacy, 106, 111, 115–117
DiBiase, W. J., 20–21, 25, 180, 186

Edvantia, 90
Ely, R., 57
English, F. W., 68, 84, 182
Erickson, H. L., 4, 154
Evans-Newton, Inc., 38–39
Expert Review, 52

Floden, R. E., 41
Freeman, D., 28–29, 181
Freeman, Y. S., 37–38
Frontloading curriculum, 66

Gentile, J. R., 93, 102

Goodman, K. S., 37–38, 181
Griffith, L. K., 19–20, 25, 180
Groves, F. H., 115–116

Haertel, G., 61–66

Haydel DeBarger, A., 61–66
Howson, G., 30–31, 33, 41, 125, 181

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 57

Instruction
alignment between laboratory instruction and lectures, 20–21
alignment between state tests and, 19–20
alignment matrix, 19
Bloom’s model of instructional quality, 91–92
New Tools for Analyzing Teaching, Curriculum and Standards in
Mathematics & Science (Blank, Porter, and Smithson), 12–15
 Reform Up Close project, 9–12
summary of research and conclusions, 180–181
textbooks and quality, 33–37
urban settings, 16–18
what districts can do, ix, 21–25
Instructional alignment, Cohen’s, 96
ITBS (Iowa Test of Basic Skills), 39

Jacobs, H. H., 4, 154

Kendall, J. S., 50–52

Kingsbury, G. G., 66–67, 182
Kreikemeier, P., 61–66

Laboratory instruction and lectures, alignment between, 20–21

Lalley, J. P., 93, 102
Learning, Blooms’ theory of school, 90–96

Marca, P. M., 69
Marzano, R. J., 50–52
Mastery learning
alignment matrix, 95
Blooms’ theory of school learning, 90–96
Cohen’s instructional alignment, 96
development of, 90
summary of, 100–101
summary of research and conclusions, 183
what districts can do, x, 101–104
Wishnick’s study on power of alignment compared to
demographics on predicting achievement, 89, 96–101
Mathematics
alignment between standardized tests and textbooks, 28–29
alignment example, 12–15
instructional quality and use of textbooks, 33–37
 Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 30–
31
McGehee, J. J., 19–20, 25, 180
McTighe, J., 4, 145, 154
Mode of presentation, 10
Moss-Mitchell, F., 38–39, 68, 131, 181
Murphy, S., 37–38

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 6, 14–15

comparison of cut scores, 67
science inquiry, 61–66
National Center for Educational Statistics, 182
comparison of cut scores, 67
National Research Council, 61, 106
National Science Education Standards (NSES), 20, 61–63
National Science Education Standards: Observe, Interact, Change,
Learn, 106
New Standards Science Reference Exam (NSSRE), science inquiry,
61–66
New Tools for Analyzing Teaching, Curriculum and Standards in
Mathematics & Science (Blank, Porter, and Smithson), 12–15
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, 3, 4, 66, 141–142
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA), RIT assessment, 66–67

Parallel Curriculum, The (Tomlinson), 4, 154

Porter, A. C., 9–15, 21–24, 180
Posner, G. J., 4, 154
Price-Baugh, R., 39–40, 41, 68, 131, 181
Project 2061
alignment matrix, 110
analysis of curriculum materials, 117
assessments, creating, 117–118
description of, 28, 33–37
list of possible topics to be excluded from the curriculum, 115
purpose and approaches, 106–110
 repetition, reducing wasteful, 116–117
strand maps, 109, 118–124
summary of, 110–111
summary of research and conclusions, 183
technical vocabulary to be trimmed, 115–116
tools of, 106
what districts can do, x–xi, 111–124

Quellmalz, E., 61–66, 182

Range of knowledge, 53, 60

Reading textbooks, alignment and, 37–38
Redfield, D., 69
Reform Up Close project, 9–12
Resources for Science Literacy: Professional Development, 111
Rudnitsky, A. N., 4, 154

SAT, 6, 20, 21
Schmidt, W. H., 32–33, 41, 125, 128–130, 181, 184
Science
alignment example, 12–15
inquiry, 61–66
instructional quality and use of textbooks, 33–37
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 30–
31
Science for All Americans, 106–107, 108
Sequential Development, 52
Shannon, P., 37–38
Smithson, J., 12–15
Special education, 57–59
Staff development tool, 16
Standardized tests
alignment between instruction and, 19–20
alignment between math textbooks and, 28–29
alignment matrix, 50
 backloading/frontloading curriculum, 66
balance and range, 51
content, 51
Content Knowledge: A Compendium of Standards and
Benchmarks for K–12 Education (Kendall and Marzano), 50–52
level of difficulty, 51
National Center for Educational Statistics, comparison of cut
scores, 67
Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA), RIT assessment, 66–
67
relationship between state standards and assessments, 52–57
relationship between state standards and tests and textbooks,
50–52
performance, 51
science inquiry, 61–66
special education, 57–59
summary of, 68–69
summary of research and conclusions, 182
vertical alignment, 59–60
Web Alignment Tool (WAT), 57, 76–77
what districts can do, x, 69–85
Standards
alignment problems and, 6–7
defined, 141
summary of research and conclusions, 182
Standards-based definition of curriculum, 143–146
State tests. See Standardized tests
Steffy, B. E., 68, 84, 182
Stirring the Head, Heart, and Soul (Erickson), 4, 154
Strand maps, 109, 118–124
Success for All—Roots and Wings for Elementary School Reading,
142

Taylor, L., 59
Taught curriculum, 8
Tested curriculum, 8
Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS), 39–40
Textbooks
alignment matrix, 40
instructional quality and use of, 33–37
international research on, 30–31
modifying the use of, to improve alignment, 38–41
reading, and alignment, 37–38
role of, 31–32
summary of findings, 32–33, 41
summary of research and conclusions, 181
to test alignment, 28–29
what districts can do, ix–x, 41–48
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)
alignment matrix, 132
curriculum and achievement, relationship between, 129–132
description of, 30–31, 52
findings, 128–132
framework topics, 126–127
influence of, 125
science inquiry, 61–66
scope of, 128
selection of students, 127–128
summary of research and conclusions, 184
tests, 128
what districts can do, xi, 133–135
Tomlinson, C. A., 4, 154
Topic coverage, 10
Tyler, R., 146

Understanding by Design (Wiggins and McTighe), 4, 145, 154

Vertical alignment, 59–60

Vesperman, B., 57
Wagner, E. P., 20–21, 25, 180, 186
Warren, J., 20–21, 25, 180, 186
Web Alignment Tool (WAT), 57, 76–77
Webb, N. L., 7, 52–57, 60, 76–77, 182
Why Schools Matter: A Cross-National Comparison of Curriculum
and Learning (Schmidt), 125
Wiggins, G., 4, 145, 154
Winter, P., 59, 69
Wise, L. L., 59, 182
Wishnick, K., 89, 96–101, 131, 183
Written curriculum, 7

Yager, R. E., 115

Zhang, L., 59
The Corwin Press logo—a raven striding across an open book—
represents the union of courage and learning. Corwin Press is
committed to improving education for all learners by publishing
books and other professional development resources for those
serving the field of PreK–12 education. By providing practical,
hands-on materials, Corwin Press continues to carry out the promise
of its motto: “Helping Educators Do Their Work Better.”