Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Curriculum Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant report finds strong UBD foundation but calls for assessment calibration and version control
Summary
An ACES curriculum audit praised Regional School District 13's UBD foundation and performance tasks but recommended formalizing stage‑one understandings, assessment calibration, vertical progression documentation, and version-control processes to make curriculum implementation system‑dependent rather than teacher‑dependent.
Consultants from ACES presented a district curriculum audit to the Student Achievement Committee on May 27, praising the district’s Understanding by Design (UBD) foundation while identifying several systemic needs.
Rosie, the lead consultant, said reviewers examined hundreds of curriculum documents, unit plans, pacing guides and performance tasks. Strengths included consistent use of UBD frameworks across K–12, evidence of high‑quality student performance tasks in some content areas, and pockets of vertical alignment. “We have a really strong UBD foundation,” Rosie said.
The audit’s highest‑priority needs were: clarifying conceptual precision in stage‑one unit design (transfer goals and enduring understandings), instituting formal revision cycles and version control, documenting vertical progression across grades, and standardizing assessment calibration with shared rubric language and moderation protocols. Rosie said assessment calibration would yield the “biggest bang for our buck” by building shared teacher understanding of mastery and supporting reliable performance assessments.
The report recommended a phased approach with embedded professional learning, vertical teams during curriculum writing, and leadership structures for curriculum publication, monitoring, and sustainability. Staff described current work: content teams have developed performance tasks and begun calibration and professional learning sessions; a 60‑page audit summary will be made available to committee members and the board.
Committee members asked practical questions about tools and costs for version control and whether state model curricula were used as references; presenters said Google‑based repositories are common cost‑sensitive approaches but acknowledged tradeoffs and noted social studies used state model curricula for comparison. The consultant said some content areas (PE, music) lacked sufficient written materials to audit and recommended continued staged development.
Next steps: continue performance‑task development, embed ongoing small‑group professional learning, create shared rubric language and moderation protocols, formalize revision cycles and version control, and provide the board with the full audit summary and presentation slides.
