In Designing for Diversity Part 1, Where is Equity and Inclusion in Curriculum Design? we noted the lack of equity and inclusivity in the creation of widely disseminated curriculum materials. We asked the question: Are the established approaches to designing and implementing science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and computer science (STEM+CS) curricula suitable to the diverse needs of students? In this paper, we introduce The Equity and Inclusion Framework for Curriculum Design (EI-CD) approach and Equity and Inclusion Design Principles (EI Design Principles). The framework is guided by evidence-centered design (ECD) methods originally developed for formative assessment (Alozie et al., 2018) and the design of instructional materials (Fujii et al., 2020).
This paper describes how the EI-CD approach can be used to review and modify existing curriculum and instructional materials to meet equity and inclusivity goals. It is intended to help districts and schools work toward equity and inclusion within the constraints of their current curriculum. At its core, the EI-CD approach creates feedback loops that are grounded in EI Design Principles and aimed at continuously learning about and addressing the unique needs of students. The EI-CD approach makes equity and inclusion central tenets of the curriculum development and/or modification process.
Caroline E Parker
SRI Author
Designing for Diversity Part 1. Where is Equity and Inclusion in Curriculum Design?
High-quality STEM+CS curricula should not only incorporate our most current standards; they should also be equitable and inclusive. Curricula do not exist in a vacuum; teachers interpret curricula based on their own frameworks, and students experience curricula through their own lenses. This human interaction with curricula means that issues of equity and inclusion must be addressed; without doing so, some people will have greater access than others. But how well suited are established approaches to informing, designing, and implementing STEM+CS curricula to the diverse needs of diverse students? This whitepaper series proposes a novel approach to designing and/or modifying instructional materials that address diversity by purposefully and systemically integrating equity and inclusion principles at the onset of curriculum design.
This paper, the first in a series of three, describes why current approaches to designing STEM+CS curricula are inadequate; defines diversity, equity, and inclusion in the context of curriculum design; and introduces The Equity and Inclusion Framework for Curriculum Design (EI-CD) approach for designing and adapting STEM+CS curriculum materials to meet the needs of diverse students. A second paper describes the EI-CD approach in detail, showing how the structure, coherence, and rigor of evidence-centered design is leveraged. The third and final paper explores how state and local education leaders can work with the EI-CD approach to make STEM+CS instruction more equitable and inclusive.
College-Based Transition Services’ Impact on Self-Determination for Youth with Intellectual Disabilities
Most youth in transition services with labels of intellectual or developmental disability (IDD) have poorer employment outcomes than their peers with other or without disabilities. One alternative approach to address this challenge provides youth with IDD access to transition services in the context of a college or university campus. College-based transition services (CBTS) provide students with IDD during their final two to three years of secondary education access to college courses, internships, and employment. A quasi-experimental design evaluation of one college-based transition services model, Think College Transition, found that, after controlling for student baseline scores, the college-based transition services had a significant effect on students’ scores of self-determination at post-test. Implications for further refining the model are discussed.
How Is the Pandemic Affecting English Learners?
With schools across the United States turning to distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns are being raised about the quality of instruction that English learners—students whose English proficiency affects their ability to meaningfully participate in school—are receiving. English learners make up nearly 10 percent of all public school students in the United States and, even during normal times, face significant barriers to academic success. Those challenges are multiplied when instruction goes online.
A Reason to SMiLE: Effective Literacy Instruction for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities
In 2017, researchers from Education Development Center (EDC), in partnership with the New York City Department of Education’s District 75, and with funding from the Institute for Educational Sciences, launched an evaluation of the impact of Structured Methods in Language Education (SMiLE) on the literacy skills of students with significant cognitive disabilities.
Individualized Education Programs for English Learners With Significant Cognitive Disabilities
Educators and family members who participate in IEP meetings for English learners with significant cognitive disabilities can use this brief to plan for quality meetings and successful school experiences for their students and children.
Graduation Outcomes of Students Who Entered New York City Public Schools in Grade 5 or 6 as English Learner Students
This study describes high school graduation outcomes for students who entered New York City schools in grade 5 or 6 as English learner students. It uses longitudinal administrative data from New York City public schools to focus on 1,734 students who entered New York City schools and were initially classified as English learner students in grades 5 and 6 in the 2003/04 school year. This study followed these cohorts through their expected years of graduation (2009/10 and 2010/11) to estimate on-time graduation rates and for two additional years (that is, through 2011/12 and 2012/13) to estimate five-year and six-year graduation rates. To determine if the differences in graduation outcomes between the sub-groups of long-term English learner students and short-term English learner students were statistically significant, logistic regression was used. Approximately 64 percent of students in these cohorts graduated from high school on time while an additional 15 percent graduated within six years of entering grade 9, yielding a six-year cohort graduation rate of 79 percent. Students in these cohorts earned a variety of diploma types including the standard Regents diploma (41 percent), the more rigorous Advanced Regents diploma (19 percent), and the less rigorous Local diploma (19 percent). Additional exploratory regression analyses indicated that long-term English learner students had statistically significantly higher probabilities of earning a Local diploma and statistically significantly lower probabilities of earning a Regents diploma or an Advanced Regents diploma than short-term English learner students. The differences in diploma types earned by long-term and short-term English learner students are not explained by differences in their background characteristics. This study has implications for understanding graduation patterns of English learners. Six-year graduation rates may be particularly important to consider when describing the graduation outcomes of students who enter school as English learner students. Policy makers should explore the implications for college readiness of the higher rate of English learner students receiving the less rigorous Local diploma versus a Regents diploma or an Advanced Regents diploma. Future efforts to investigate the extent to which districts and schools are meeting the needs of English learner students need to be careful to track students over time, regardless of whether they have met standards for English proficiency.
