Target audience

The audience for this resource is school principals, executive teams and school staff. Directors, Educational Leadership (DELs) and Principals, School Leadership (PSLs) can also use it to guide schools with their IPM development.

When and how to use

Curriculum implementation is core and ongoing business in schools and effective curriculum implementation drives student growth and attainment, and school improvement.

New syllabuses provide schools with a unique opportunity to re-focus and place curriculum at the heart of school planning. This resource can be used by schools to align IPM activities, resources and evaluation plans in current strategic direction initiatives to the essential work of curriculum implementation.

A range of activities have been included as examples to highlight actions schools may undertake during the Enact phase of curriculum implementation.

Evaluation samples are also included to support the iterative nature of the Question, Data, Analysis, Implications (QDAI) process. There should be a logical connection between evaluation questions, the data that is collected to answer those questions, the analysis of the data, the implications determined from the analysis, and the next activity.

Research base

This resource was developed by Curriculum and Reform. The research base used was NESA’s NSW Curriculum and the department’s What works best in practice.

School processes for professional learning and curriculum implementation

Staff meetings – Add regular agenda items to staff meetings to support effective communication of system requirements for curriculum implementation – school Curriculum Reform coordinator’s CRC report, NESA timelines, department policy implications, relevant teaching association and state-wide staffroom updates, stage or faculty Plus, Minus, Interesting (PMI) on curriculum implementation. Use a staff meeting minutes template to ensure reliable data collection. Exit slip survey to gauge staff confidence.

Executive team – Create reporting guidelines document (new and old syllabus outcomes for stages + Curriculum Planning and Programming, Assessing and Reporting to Parents K-12 policy requirements).

Stage or faculty meeting – Staff PL on evaluation tools for curriculum implementation (Resource: ‘How to use data for effective evaluation’). Exit slip survey with confidence rating. Collaborative discussion recorded using stage or faculty meeting minutes template.

Data collection and analysis to inform teaching and learning

Stage or faculty meetings

• Teams collaboratively create checklists for evaluation tools (consistent criteria to support triangulation of data).
• Create evaluation tools schedule (document analysis and lesson observation – sample documents or lessons only).

Executive team

• Analyse staff meeting exit slip data to identify staff professional learning needs and refine implementation plan.
• Review stage or faculty criteria checklists and data collection schedules to ensure sampling provides sufficient process quality evidence.
• Create a presentation for School Development Day (SDD) on reporting guidelines.

Evaluation

Question – To what extent have whole school processes been enacted to support curriculum implementation?

Data – Staff meeting exit slip data on staff confidence. Staff meeting minutes. Stage or faculty exit slip data on evaluation tools. Stage or faculty meeting minutes.

Analysis – Staff meeting exit slip data indicates increase in confidence (X% of staff have ‘high’ confidence). Staff meeting minutes indicate consistent whole school processes for communicating system curriculum reform updates. Stage or faculty meeting exit slips indicate staff have ‘high’ confidence in administering evaluation tools. However, evaluation tools criteria should consider inclusion of differentiation. Regular agenda items and meeting minutes templates reflect whole school process for curriculum reform.

Implications – Stage or faculty leaders will establish pairings for coaching support – engage ‘high’ confidence staff to support X% of staff with ‘limited’ confidence to implement curriculum reform. PL to support a whole school understanding of curriculum differentiation. No whole school processes for reporting – executive team to develop guidelines document and SDD presentation; stage or faculty teams to add reporting criteria to evaluation tool checklist.

School processes for professional learning and curriculum implementation

School development day

• Executive presentation – Universal Design for Learning (UDL) to support differentiation (selected ‘Curriculum planning for every student in every classroom’ modules). Entry and exit slip survey about staff confidence and impact of professional learning.
• Executive presentation – Reporting guidelines (considerations – new and old syllabus outcomes for stages and alignment to NSW Curriculum Planning and Programming, Assessing and Reporting to Parents K-12 policy).

Stage or faculty meeting

Align reporting guidelines to teaching and learning programs and add reporting criteria to evaluation tool checklist. Allocate pairings of ‘high’ confidence staff with ‘low’ confidence staff for coaching support. Collaborative discussion recorded using faculty meeting minutes template to ensure reliable data collection.

Data collection and analysis to inform teaching and learning

Stage or faculty teams

• Implement evaluation tools schedule (document analysis and lesson observations) using criteria checklist. Schedules include sessions to collect and analyse data from evaluation tools.
• Discuss analysis of evaluation tools data.
• Conduct resource gap analysis – resources, excursions, mandatory practical requirements.
• Faculty or stage leader to check in with low-confidence staff about the effectiveness of coaching support. Collaborative discussion recorded using faculty meeting minutes template.

P&C meeting

Parent/carer information session on school’s curriculum implementation plan. Establish a parent focus group to collect data on reporting.

Executive team

• Conduct parent focus groups
• Analyse Tell Them From Me (TTFM) student survey data. Create a presentation for SDD.
• Analyse staff meeting exit slip data to identify staff professional learning needs and refine curriculum implementation plan.
• Review stage or faculty evaluation tools data and resource gap analysis.

Evaluation

Question – How effectively is the new curriculum being taught in the classroom?

Data – Staff meeting entry and exit slip data (confidence and impact of UDL PL). Stage or faculty meeting minutes. Evaluation tools data (samples of document analysis and lesson observation). TTFM student survey data.

Analysis – Staff meeting exit slip data indicates an increase in staff confidence (X% of staff have ‘high’ confidence). Stage and faculty minutes indicate ‘low’ confidence staff increased their confidence and felt supported by process. Lesson observations of ‘low’ confidence staff sample, indicate they are teaching the new curriculum more effectively than ‘neutral’ confidence staff. Teaching and learning document analysis shows a strong alignment to reporting guidelines. X% of staff indicated UDL PL increased their confidence in curriculum differentiation. However, triangulation of sample teaching and learning document analysis and lesson observation data indicates differentiation strategies do not cater to individual student learning needs. Executive team analysis of TTFM data indicates a slight decline in student engagement.

Implications – To enhance teaching of the new curriculum, stages and faculties need to establish more coaching and team-teaching opportunities so ‘high’ confidence teachers can mentor those less confident. Stage and faculty leaders to conduct a review of teacher annotations in teaching and learning programs and include a mechanism for LST/SLSO feedback to identify ways to ensure new curriculum meets the learning needs of all students. Executive team to present an analysis of TTFM data at SDD; stages and faculties to establish student focus groups to gather student engagement evidence.

School processes for professional learning and curriculum implementation

School development day

• Executive presentation – TTFM student engagement data.
• Collaboration: coaching pairs develop a team-teaching/mentoring schedule to support ongoing development of teachers.
• Collaboration: stages/faculties develop an evaluation schedule for student data (formative and summative assessment data (including Check-in assessment), time for data talks, student focus groups about student engagement).

Stage and faculty teams

Conduct NAPLAN analysis. Collaborative discussion recorded using stage/faculty meeting minutes template.

Data collection and analysis to inform teaching and learning

Stage and faculty teams

• Stage and faculty leaders review teacher annotations in teaching and learning programs and survey LST and SLSO staff to identify ways to ensure the new curriculum meets the learning needs of all students. Record differentiation support.
• Stage and faculty staff implement evaluation schedule for student data (formative and summative assessment data, time for data talks, student focus groups about student engagement).
• Discuss analysis of student data (include triangulation of data about student engagement: focus groups, TTFM and student achievement – NAPLAN and formative and summative assessment data), and record using faculty meeting minutes template.

Executive team

• Analyse parent focus group data and prepare a report for staff and P&C to communicate findings.
• Review stage or faculty and NAPLAN analysis and prepare a summary for staff and P&C to communicate findings.

P&C meeting

Parent and carer information session on focus group findings, NAPLAN analysis, and curriculum implementation update. Survey P&C about the effectiveness of assessment and reporting processes.

Executive team

• Analyse staff meeting exit slip data to identify staff professional learning needs and refine implementation plan.
• Review stage or faculty differentiation support.
• Review stage or faculty student achievement and engagement data analysis – baseline to measure impact in Embed phase.

Evaluation

Question – How effectively is the new curriculum being assessed and reported on?

Data – Student data evaluation schedule. Student achievement and engagement summaries (NAPLAN and internal formative and summative assessment data; TTFM student survey data and student focus group data). Stage or faculty differentiation support data (document analysis of teacher annotations in teaching and learning programs and LST or SLSO survey data). Stage or faculty meeting minutes. P&C survey data.

Analysis:

• Triangulation of NAPLAN data and internal assessment data used to establish baseline to measure impact on student learning in Embed phase.
• Triangulation of TTFM survey and student focus group data indicates students find the new curriculum less engaging. Focus groups highlight the need for more ‘experiential and hands-on’ learning. LST and SLSO survey data reflect the need for more assessment differentiation (exemplars and scaffolds).
• NAPLAN analysis indicates value-add for Top 2 Band students is not occurring. Stage and faculty minutes demonstrate regular time allocated to ‘data talks’; however, data conversations need to identify how data can be used to inform teaching and learning. P&C survey data indicates X% satisfaction with reporting.

Implications – Strong processes have been established to effectively assess and report on student learning outcomes in relation to the new curriculum. Executive team will establish a schedule for regular evaluation of stage and faculty programs in the Embed phase. Continue to report to parents using the established model, and conduct parent focus groups after the release of reports. Review of teaching and learning programs (sample) to address the following – assessment differentiation (exemplars, scaffolds), more experiential teaching and learning activities, HPGE strategies to support value-adding for Top 2 Band students.

School processes for professional learning and curriculum implementation

Staff meeting

Executive presentation – High potential and gifted education (HPGE) teaching and learning strategies. Entry and exit slip survey data to identify the impact of professional learning.

Data collection and analysis to inform teaching and learning

Stage or faculty meetings

• Review reporting documentation to ensure alignment with reporting guidelines. Collaborative discussion recorded using stage or faculty meeting minutes template.
• Review evaluation tools schedule (document analysis and lesson observation – sample documents or lessons only). Update document analysis criteria to reflect earlier implications: assessment differentiation, experiential teaching and learning activities, HPGE strategies. Use previous lesson observation criteria.
• Stage or faculty staff implement evaluation tools schedule (document analysis and lesson observations) using criteria checklist. Schedules will include sessions to collect and analyse data from evaluation tools.
• Analyse evaluation tools data. Stage or faculty leader to check in with coaching pairs to determine the effectiveness of ongoing support. Collaborative discussion recorded using meeting minutes template.

P&C meeting

Parent and carer information session on updates on curriculum implementation.

Executive team

• Analyse staff meeting exit slip data to identify staff professional learning needs. Review evaluation tools data to refine the implementation plan.
• Complete annual reflection, analysis of all relevant data and progress of implementation plan to create a scaffold for IPM activities in the following year. Use student data (Check-in assessment, NAPLAN, PLAN2 data) to identify strengths and areas for growth in relation to new content.

Evaluation

Question – Which aspects of the Enact phase of curriculum implementation should be strengthened and scaled to support the Embed phase?

Data – Staff meeting exit slip data (confidence and impact of HPGE professional learning). Stage or faculty meeting minutes. Evaluation tools data (samples such as document analysis, lesson observations).

Analysis:

• Staff meeting exit slip data indicates an increase in confidence (X% of staff have ‘high’). Triangulation with stage or faculty minutes highlights the benefit of coaching pairs.
• Staff meeting exit slip dataon HPGE Pprofessional learning reflects an increase in understanding of effective strategies. Document analysis reflects an increase in experiential learning activities. Lesson observation data reflects an increase in engagement and increase in effectiveness to implement curriculum (as measured against established criteria).
• Stage or faculty minutes reflect an increase in data conversations centred on using data to inform teaching and learning and differentiation.

Implications – Use of evaluation tools (document analysis, focus groups and lesson observations) is an effective way of gathering evidence of process quality. Whole school processes (regular curriculum reform agendas, staff or faculty minutes template, communication to parents and focus groups) should all be sustained as part of the Embed phase. Assessment and analysis of student data will be strengthened in the Embed phase (baseline data to be used to determine evidence of impact). Proceed to the Embed phase of curriculum implementation.