Wisconsin Rapids School District
Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin

The complexity of curriculum development with a focus not only on classroom material to be covered but also on standards, capacity building, and assessment can seem to be an overwhelming task. To show how one school district navigated through this process and to delineate the steps they took, the Wisconsin Rapids School District, Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin, is featured throughout this critical issue.

In Wisconsin Rapids, a group of educators met to look at the current science curriculum and develop a curriculum that eventually would integrate the science standards. Donna Weber, principal of Grove Elementary School, and Martha Kronholm, 5th and 6th grade multiage teacher at Grove Elementary School, were members of the curriculum-development team for the Wisconsin Rapids School District. They share what they learned in their efforts to integrate standards into the curriculum.

Donna Weber discusses the initial makeup of the curriculum committee [774K audio file]. Excerpted from an audiotape made by Donna Weber and Martha Kronholm.

The text of this audio appears below:

"Our science planning committee has been led by a group of district leaders: the director of curriculum and instruction, staff development personnel, key administrators, and the K-12 science coordinator. Science committee members consist of two groups: interested staff members who have volunteered their services, and teachers who are asked to serve on the committee due to their leadership abilities and expertise in the subject area of science. In addition, careful attention is given to make sure that all grade levels are represented on the committee."

Educators in the Wisconsin Rapids School District have spent years working to develop their science curriculum framework. In the process, they have faced several challenges common to schools that are trying to improve.

Donna Weber and Martha Kronholm discuss the challenges faced by curriculum committee members as they worked to develop their science curriculum framework [978 K audio file]. Excerpted from an audiotape made by Donna Weber and Martha Kronholm.

The text of this audio appears below:

"The meeting of these key individuals [curriculum planning committee] began approximately six years ago. The initial process began with study groups. The study groups read research including Project 2061: Benchmarks for Science Literacy, Science for All Americans, and other National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) publications."

"The first time that the district employed a process of mapping out a K-12 science framework, with the help of North Central Regional Educational Laboratory (NCREL) personnel, was approximately three years ago. The process has been a continual and evolving one ever since. We feel the work we have done, and are continuing to do, is a dynamic process. Our curriculum is a living, breathing document!"

"The development of our curriculum framework began with hours and hours of frustrating and hard work from our secondary science teachers. It was soon evident that smooth progress would be hampered by a variety of issues and concerns. These included differences in opinion and philosophies between junior high and high school teachers, mediation of heated work sessions, trying to reach a consensus for grade-level groupings within our science curriculum, and resolving perennial issues of turfdom. Changes in leadership--at the science coordinator and director of curriculum and instruction levels--also contributed to the need of regrouping and refocusing. No one ever said that curriculum work was going to be easy."

Wisconsin Rapids committee members reviewed a number of standards documents and gave a great deal of thought to what they wanted to include in their district content standards and benchmarks.

Donna Weber and Martha Kronholm discuss the various publications and standards documents that were reviewed during the process of developing the district's content standards and benchmarks [779 K audio file]. Excerpted from an audiotape made by Donna Weber and Martha Kronholm.

The text of this audio appears below:

"These [content standards] were developed after looking at a variety of publications, research articles, NSTA literature, state and national standards, and curriculum documents from other districts. Getting input from a variety of sources has helped us conceptualize an eclectic document of our very own."

"The benchmarks that we are in the process of creating add more specificity to the content standards and are written with developmental levels of students in mind. Our benchmarks, now in first draft format, are written in grade-level groupings at the K-6 level. This is consistent with the Wisconsin state science standards and matches the developmental nature of science, which we strongly believe in."

"Creating our district's benchmarks has involved cross-referencing our state standards to our district curriculum's content standards. Key questions in benchmark development are continually being adressed, for example: What are the critical skills and knowledge that we want our students to be able to know and to do? What is developmentally appropriate for students at these grade-level groupings?"

The Wisconsin Rapids committee came to the understanding that the content standards alone--determining what students should know--are not enough to develop a curriculum framework.

Martha Kronholm notes the importance of standards focusing not only on what students should know but also on what they should be able to do [498 K audio file]. Excerpted from an audiotape made by Donna Weber and Martha Kronholm.

The text of this audio appears below:

"The secondary teachers' initial planning sessions took place prior to the publication of state standards. Many of their first curriculum drafts included statements of what students should know or should understand instead of looking at what students should be able to do or what students should be able to perform. When the NCREL personnel became involved with the development of our Science Framework, they helped the secondary teachers work through a process to look for the big ideas of science. These big ideas, or strands, helped teachers to conceptualize a plan or a road map for our entire district. This road map focuses not only on what students should know. It focuses on what students should be able to do."

In Wisconsin Rapids, curriculum-development committee members kept in mind two educational ideologies: constructivism and developmentalism.

Martha Kronholm and Donna Weber discuss constructivism and developmentalism. They talk about how these philosophies influenced the curriculum development as well as the exploration of different curriculum-planning models [1.1 MB audio file]. Excerpted from an audiotape made by Donna Weber and Martha Kronholm.

The text of this audio appears below:

"Science is an active process, and science is for all students. These are principles that permeate our science curriculum. In addition, a blend of two ideologies pervades our Wisconsin Rapids Public Schools science curriculum: constructivism and developmentalism. The constructivist view is that all students come to learning tasks already well supplied with their own sets of knowledge, conceptions, and misconceptions. Developmentalism is a belief that rather than fitting the child to the curriculum, students are better served if the curriculum is fitted to the child's stage of development. The developmental approach to curriculum pays attention to the ways children grow and learn. By understanding children's abilities and capabilities, worthwhile educational activities for students can be planned."

"Our elementary curriculum is organized into developmental levels: grades K-2, 3-4, and 5-6. These levels match those found in NSTA's Pathways to the Science Standards. We appreciated the model entitled Science for all Students, which was provided by the Florida Department of Education. It offered specific examples of how science curriculum is put into practice. In addition, NCREL's Tree Templates were being developed about the same time as our curriculum was being written. This gave teachers a variety of choices for planning lessons in their classroom. During professional development sessions, our kindergarten through 6th-grade staff had the opportunity to select the template model that matched their teaching style and lesson-format preference."

Martha Kronholm and Donna Weber discuss how the Wisconsin Rapids School District provided capacity-building experiences in a variety of formats [762 K audio file]. Excerpted from an audiotape made by Donna Weber and Martha Kronholm.

The text of this audio appears below:

"During the implementation phase, several professional-development sessions were held. These large group sessions provided a forum where a common knowledge base and philosophical base could be discussed. Outside consultants--including Department of Public Instruction personnel and teacher leaders from within the state--were involved in these discussions. Small-group discussions within each of the elementary buildings followed the large group sessions. These study groups enabled individuals to question, reflect, and refine their understanding of the curriculum. Some individuals and teams of teachers designed classroom science lessons using our new curriculum and NCREL's Tree Templates. We felt that the Tree Templates would be one vehicle to share exemplary investigations [lessons]."

"Optional staff-development opportunities have also been structured in our district. Hands-on science classes and workshops were offered in the summer. Some of these classes had follow-up meetings that reinforced concepts learned and gave teachers additional time to reflect and to discuss curriculum issues."