


































Microsoft Word - 1. Curr Redesign-Summ 2013.docx


Vol. 2, No. 1, June 2013, pp. 7-15   
 
 
 
 
Tracing a Journey of Curriculum Redesign in Education:  
Are We There Yet? 
Judy Britt, Christine Ferguson, Jonatha Vare 
Winthrop University 
 
 
 
 
 

Abstract 
 

The phrase “Are we there yet?” is used by travelers, often children who pose the question to 

gauge the distance and time remaining in a trip. How far have we traveled?  How much longer 

will it be until we arrive at our destination? This article describes curriculum redesign for our 

early childhood and elementary education programs at Winthrop University in South Carolina. 

The details of this journey offer a roadmap of the program revision process that we encountered 

in our efforts to work toward continuous improvement in teacher education. By working with 

program faculty from within our college as well as faculty from the College of Arts and Sciences 

we accomplished our goals for curriculum redesign. As we enter the final phase of this 2-year 

endeavor, our writing documents the process that we encountered to achieve this goal. 

  



8	
     J. Britt, C. Ferguson, and J. Vare	
  
 

 
Travelers, often children, pose questions to gauge the distance and time remaining in a 

trip, “Are we there yet?” How far have we traveled?  How much longer will it be until we arrive 
at our destination? This case study describes curriculum redesign for our early childhood and 
elementary education programs at Winthrop University in South Carolina. The details of this 
journey offer a chronicle of the program revision process that a task force of faculty encountered 
in their efforts to work toward continuous improvement in teacher education. By working with 
program faculty from within the College of Education as well as faculty from the College of Arts 
and Sciences, members of a task force accomplished their goals for curriculum redesign. As the 
group enters the final phase of this two-year endeavor, our article documents the process that the 
task force encountered to achieve this goal.   

For many years, teacher preparation programs have emphasized segmented academic 
preparation and course work with loosely connected school-based experiences. Critics, 
policymakers, teachers, and school leaders have raised concerns that today’s teacher education 
programs are inadequately preparing educators to keep pace with 21st century classrooms and 
new technologies as well as ensuring that novice teachers are well-prepared to strengthen student 
learning (NCATE, 2010). The National Research Council (NRC) report (2010), Preparing 
Teachers: Building Evidence for Sound Policy, identified clinical preparation (or “field 
experience) as one of the three “aspects of teacher preparation that are likely to have the highest 
potential for effects on outcomes for students,” along with content knowledge and the quality of 
teacher candidates (p.180).” The NCATE Blue Ribbon Panel (2010) recommends a national 
approach to teacher preparation reform that includes clinically based preparation interwoven 
with academic content and professional courses. This clinically-based approach requires that 
teacher education programs work in close partnership with schools and school districts as well as 
engage in shared decision making in the redesign of teacher preparation, selection of and 
placement of candidates in their schools, assessment of candidate performance and progress, and 
documentation of candidate impact on student learning. Based on these recommendations and 
the teacher education faculty’s efforts to work toward continuous improvement in teacher 
education, the task force set out to redesign the curriculum for two initial certification programs 
through a clinically based, partnership approach. 

 
Background 

The Richard W. Riley College of Education (COE) at Winthrop University in South 
Carolina has offered a Bachelor of Science in Elementary Education (B.S. ELEM) and a 
Bachelor of Science in Early Childhood (B.S ECED) degree for many years.  The teacher 
certification earned by elementary education majors is aligned with the Association for 
Childhood Education International (ACEI) 2007 Standards and South Carolina certification 
guidelines for students in grades 2-6. The early childhood program is aligned with the National 
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) 2010 Standards and South Carolina 
certification guidelines for students in grades Pre-K – 3. Winthrop University adheres to the 
principles espoused by the Renaissance Group to improve the quality of teacher preparation 
(Renaissance Group, 2011). For example, the task force’s curriculum redesign effort involved 
faculty from multiple departments and colleges on campus in the implementation of COE 
initiatives to improve preparation of early childhood and elementary teachers. 

As part of NetSCOPE (Network of Sustained, Collaborative, Ongoing, Preparation for 
Educators), a U.S. Department of Education Teacher Quality Grant obtained by Winthrop 



 Curriculum Redesign    9 
 

University, the College of Education’s dean charged an interdisciplinary task force of early 
childhood, elementary, education core, literacy, and special education faculty with the mission of 
transforming program design to align with recommendations of the NCATE Blue Ribbon Panel 
(NCATE, 2010). Awarded in 2009, NetSCOPE facilitates a network of educators and schools 
with the ultimate goal of improving student achievement. Beginning in 2010, the College of 
Education used the NetSCOPE grant to orchestrate changes in the professional education core 
curriculum. The NetSCOPE grant also supplied the funding and the impetus for making 
fundamental changes in ECED and ELEM programs. The transformative curriculum redesign 
began during the spring semester of 201l with plans for full implementation in Fall 2013.  

A three-fold rationale guided the program modification work: (a) to prepare early 
childhood and elementary candidates to meet fully the diverse needs of students in South 
Carolina schools; (b) to prepare early childhood and elementary candidates to demonstrate 
content and pedagogical knowledge within a framework of comprehensive field-based 
applications; and (c) to provide ECED and ELEM graduates with the opportunity to add on early 
childhood or elementary certification by successfully meeting Praxis II requirements for the 
South Carolina certification. 

The first goal addressed the need to fully prepare candidates to work with diverse groups 
of students in classroom settings, including English Language Learners, gifted learners, students 
with special needs in inclusive classrooms, and students living in poverty. In today’s schools, 
teacher preparation programs must focus on meeting the diverse needs of all learners to make 
instruction culturally responsive and to improve student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2006).  

The second goal addressed the need to prepare early childhood and elementary candidates 
to demonstrate content and pedagogical knowledge within a framework of comprehensive field-
based applications. Faculty identified a need for program modifications to engage candidates in 
multiple and diverse field-based settings that are woven into courses on content, child 
development, methods, classroom management, and technology and to ensure that candidates 
work with diverse learners throughout the four-year program to prepare them fully for high 
quality standards-based instruction (Bornfreund, 2011). 

The third goal provided both early childhood and elementary graduates with the option to 
add on certification for both programs by completing the required coursework for both programs 
and successfully passing Praxis II requirements for each certification. This comprehensive 
preparation provides teacher candidates with the knowledge and skills and deep understanding of 
how children develop across grades PreK-6 (Bornfreund, 2011).  Based on previous 
collaborative work with candidates, graduates, and administrators within the COE community, 
early childhood and elementary faculty members concluded that offering increased certification 
opportunities for program graduates is essential for substantive improvement.  

 
The Beginning: Implementing a Vision for Programs in ECED and ELED 

To facilitate the work, the dean constituted a Curriculum Transformation Task Force to 
represent the stakeholders in the process of program revision.  A diverse group of faculty 
members representing early childhood and elementary education, literacy education, the 
education core, and special education comprised the task force. The group’s approach to program 
revision began with a combination of small and whole small group discussions in which each 
program shared a vision for their programs. During these small group sessions, program faculty 
defined fundamental principles to establish a vision for their programs.  Beginning with faculty 
beliefs, the group identified important themes to provide an infrastructure for program design.  



10	
     J. Britt, C. Ferguson, and J. Vare	
  
 

After meeting in small group sessions, faculty met in whole-group sessions to present the 
principles that were developed in the smaller groups.  During this debriefing process faculty 
looked for common ground and found that the two programs (ECED and ELEM) shared 
common ideals for making a difference in how their graduates approached teaching.  Guiding 
principles for program design confirmed a commitment to diversity and standards-based learning 
within a framework of field-based implementation.  

Based on these early meetings in which faculty looked for common themes, the complex 
process of curriculum design began.  The term complex serves as a euphemism for the give and 
take among faculty members who asserted their own passion and unique insight in the program 
revision process. Going beyond sharing beliefs to providing a risk-free environment for fruitful 
discussions and innovation presented task force members with important challenges throughout 
the process.  The following themes, illuminated through small group discussions, established the 
guiding vision for curriculum redesign: 

• Academic Content 
• Learner Diversity 
• Additional Clinical Experiences 
• Enhanced Literacy Content and Pedagogy 
• Age-Appropriate Content Pedagogy 
• Assessment of Student Learning 

 
Monthly meetings raised a range of issues that small groups discussed and brought to the 

larger group for consideration. A summary of proposals that were presented to the group traced 
the meandering nature of ideas that came and went throughout the spring and summer of 2011 
and continued into the 2011-2012 academic year. Each phase of the curriculum redesign process 
involved a give and take of ideas. For each proposal, faculty discussed pros and cons of the 
various ideas. Throughout this process, individual faculty brought forward a plethora of issues 
and proposals for the group to consider. Reaching consensus required time and patience.  

Faculty considered and rejected some early proposals for a variety of reasons. For 
instance, in response to a proposal that outlined an interdisciplinary approach to methods 
courses in math, science and social studies, faculty members from various departments 
decided that content-specific methods courses presented the best approach to developing 
content knowledge for the elementary program.  Another rejected proposal was to merge 
ECED and ELEM programs for a K-6 certification but it did not align with South Carolina 
standards for teacher certification.  And finally, the group did not pursue the development of 
an Early Childhood Special Education program because of the additional hours that would 
have been added for completion. 

Successful plans focused on implementing the group’s collective beliefs regarding what 
teachers should know and be able to do in Pre-K-6 classrooms. The group maintained its focus 
on implementing an overarching goal of developing a content-rich, real-world approach to 
preparing teachers for today’s classroom. Task force members succeeded in finding areas of 
commonality while maintaining the integrity of program specific standards. Some innovative 
ideas developed by the task force included the following: 

• Comprehensive field-based experiences woven throughout each program; 
• A leveled approach to content methods courses for ECED and ELEM (Students in each 

program take six hours of methods in math, science and social studies);  



 Curriculum Redesign    11 
 

• A curriculum-integration course for ECED and ELEM majors during a year-long 
internship; 

• A comprehensive literacy sequence for both programs; and 
• Work involving faculty members from multiple departments in the COE and the College 

of Arts and Sciences, including the following activities:  
o Collaboration with special education faculty to develop an applied behavior analysis 

course to prepare teachers for challenging classroom behaviors; 
o Work with arts faculty to develop an interdisciplinary approach to teaching through 

an integrated arts course that replaces separate courses in art, music, dance, and 
theatre; 

o Input from mathematics instructors regarding mathematics requirements for both 
programs; 

o Development of a children’s literature course aligned with General Education goals to 
meet Humanities requirements; and  

o The addition of assignments requiring work with families of diverse learners to an 
early childhood course to align with the University’s Global Perspective 
requirements. 

 
Following the tedious process of organizing a sequence for each program, the next steps 

focused on meeting national standards and state requirements for teacher certification for both 
Pre-K through grade three as well as grades two through six in both programs. Table One shows 
how themes and transformational program components align with recommendations of 
professional groups such as NCATE, NAEYC, and ACEI. 
 
Table 1. 
Program Components and Alignment with Recommendations of Professional Groups. 
 
Themes 

 
Transformational 
Program 
Components 

Alignment with Recommendations of Professional Groups 
NCATE 
Standards 

NCATE 
Blue 
Ribbon 
Panel 

Early 
Education 
Policy 
Initiative 

NAEYC 
Stds 

ACEI 
Stds 

Renaissance 
Group 
Principles 

Academic 
Content 

Strong content 
preparation 

X   X X X 

Learner 
Diversity 

Skills to meet the 
needs of diverse 
learners (e.g., 
English 
Language 
Learners, gifted 
and exceptional 
learners in 
inclusive 
classrooms, 
students from 
diverse family 
backgrounds) 

X   X X  



12	
     J. Britt, C. Ferguson, and J. Vare	
  
 

Additional 
Clinical 
Experiences 

Early field 
experiences in 
junior-year 
methods courses; 
year-long senior 
internship 

 X X   X 

Enhanced 
Literacy 
Content and 
Pedagogy 

Literacy 
instruction for 
emergent, 
beginning, 
struggling, 
transitional, 
intermediate, and 
advanced readers 
and writers 

  X  X  

Age-
Appropriate 
Content 
Pedagogy 

Sequences of 
content-specific 
methods courses 
in both early 
childhood and 
elementary 
grades (i.e., 
PreK-3, 2-6) 

X  X X   

Assessment 
of Student 
Learning 

Methods of 
formative and 
summative 
assessment; 
capstone course 
assessment of 
teacher candidate 
impact on 
student learning 

X   X X  

 
 
The Middle: Meeting State and National Guidelines for Teacher Preparation 

By first looking at certification requirements in other programs within the state, the task 
force concluded that graduates would be better prepared for the demands of the contemporary 
job market with a broader range of grade level certifications than currently available. The group 
agreed that that its curriculum redesign would increase candidates’ opportunities for teacher 
certification and employment throughout the region by building in options for certification in 
Pre-K through grade three as well as grades two through six.  

The overarching benefit for the program modification described here aims to provide 
better preparation for both majors in content and pedagogical knowledge as they develop deeper 
understanding of earlier and later developmental stages and appropriate methods for teaching all 
students. Planning a program that incorporates coursework for an ECED, as well as an ELEM, 
certification enables our graduates to meet South Carolina requirements for teaching Pre-K – 



 Curriculum Redesign    13 
 

grade three and elementary grades two through six. By taking the appropriate Praxis II exams, 
our candidates can increase their certification options for teaching any grade in an elementary 
school. 

 
The End: Providing a Plan for Evaluation and Assessment 

As members of the task force organized the curriculum redesign for the ECED and 
ELEM programs, layers of assessment emerged. The development of an assessment plan for 
candidates and their programs formed the foundation of ECED and ELEM program 
modifications. 

The Praxis II requirements provide a useful tool to assess candidates’ content and 
pedagogical knowledge. Based on the curriculum redesign, ELEM graduates will take  
coursework required for a South Carolina teacher’s certificate (second through sixth grades) in 
elementary education and qualify for an add-on certification in early childhood education (Pre-K 
through grade three). Likewise, ECED graduates will take coursework required for certification 
in early childhood education and qualify for add-on certification in elementary education. Each 
graduate must take the Praxis II for his or her major program (ECED or ELEM) with an option to 
take the required Praxis II for the additional certification. Assessment plans use Praxis II along 
with other assessments to evaluate individual learning as well as program goals. 

The College of Education has an established process for data collection, aggregation, and 
dissemination. Program assessment plans for key assessments, data collection, and analysis 
comply with National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) requirements. 
Since each program adheres to a different Specialized Professional Association (SPA), the task 
force decided that each program would maintain a separate approach to NCATE (now the 
Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation, CAEP) evaluation and assessment.  

 
Are We There Yet? 

The Curriculum Transformation Task Force completed a successful journey toward 
curriculum redesign. During the Fall 2012 semester the College of Education received 
notification of approval from the South Carolina Department of Education and the South 
Carolina Commission of Higher Education (CHE) regarding program changes for the B. S. in 
Early Childhood Education and B. S. in Elementary Education. The task force achieved its goal 
to prepare candidates to work with diverse groups of students in classroom settings with full 
implementation of yearlong internships that immerse candidates in diverse school settings. 
Changes in early courses and field placements helped achieve the goal to prepare early childhood 
and elementary candidates to demonstrate content and pedagogical knowledge within a 
framework of field-based applications. Candidates in ECED and ELEM develop content and 
pedagogical knowledge with six hours of content methods in math, science, and social studies. 
Program changes also achieve the third goal of providing both early childhood and elementary 
graduates with the option to obtain certification in both programs by completing the required 
coursework for both programs and successfully passing Praxis II requirements for each 
certification. Nonetheless, the achievement of program goals also presented challenges and 
learning opportunities that the group continues to encounter. 
 During this complex process of curriculum redesign, faculty encountered challenges with 
both the process and the product of curriculum design. Maintaining distinctive program elements 
for both programs, such as the Specialized Program Assessment (SPA) for NCATE and as the 
COE makes the transition toward the CAEP Accreditation and South Carolina state certification 



14	
     J. Britt, C. Ferguson, and J. Vare	
  
 

requirements, presented challenges to innovation in program design.  Ongoing collective 
reflection resulted in the development of additional curriculum action items and revised program 
checklists that align program changes within the context of University requirements. In addition 
to course changes, faculty members have developed fundamental changes to course schedules as 
well as field experience implementation in 2013. The development of program checklists that 
guide this transition has revealed issues that will require continued attention between now and 
the time that the program is fully implemented. In conclusion, members of the task force offer 
two fundamental lessons learned from this program modification experience. 
 
1. Curriculum design requires an equal exchange of ideas. 
 Members of the Curriculum Transformation Task Force comprised a useful range of 
stakeholders from the COE faculty including the Dean’s office, early childhood, elementary, 
literacy, and special education faculty. At times the group seemed too large to foster useful 
dialogue in whole group settings; a smaller steering committee allowed all members to feel 
engaged in an equal exchange of ideas by strengthening communication among group members. 
Program faculty meet in small groups to discuss implementation issues prior to meetings that 
include broader representation (such as program coordinators and department chairs). 
 
2. Curriculum design is a recursive process. 
 Faculty must carefully tie each course in the curriculum design back to the original goals 
for program design. The complex nature of developing programs that meet college, university, 
state, and national guidelines requires committed, flexible, and positive interdependence 
throughout the process. Faculty must examine each change and project the potential impact on 
the curriculum of multiple programs. Timing is essential in recognizing the recursive nature of 
curriculum design. Embedded within this process, faculty must include time for thoughtful 
evaluation of changes throughout the process and be prepared to make adjustments based on that 
reflection. In addition, faculty must allot sufficient time for reflection and assessment of program 
changes prior to voting on changes in order to avoid mistakes that must be rectified through 
additional curriculum action. 

   
This case story describes curriculum redesign for early childhood and elementary 

education programs at Winthrop University in South Carolina. The case story offers a roadmap 
of the program revision process that Curriculum Transformation Task Force members 
encountered in their efforts to work toward continuous improvement in teacher education.  As 
faculty look toward full implementation of the curriculum redesign in Fall 2013, the journey 
toward curriculum redesign continues.  Implementing the changes illuminates new avenues for 
collaboration as program faculty revise the catalog, plan course offerings, and advise students 
and other faculty of program changes.  
  



 Curriculum Redesign    15 
 

 
References 

Association for Childhood Education International. (2007). Association for childhood education 

international elementary education standards and supporting explanation. Retrieved 

from http://www.acei.org/affiliations/ncate.html. 

Bornfreund, Laura, A. (2011). Getting in sync: Revamping licensing and preparation for 

teachers in Pre-K, Kindergarten, and the early grades. New American Foundation. 

Retrieved from http://www.Newamerica.net. 

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher 

Education, 57(3), 300-314. 

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2010). 2010 NAEYC standards for 

initial and advanced early childhood professional preparation. (2010). Author. 

National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming Teacher 

Education through Clinical Practice: A National Strategy to Prepare Effective Teachers. 

Retrieved from 

http://www.ncate.org/Public/Publications/TransformingTeacherEducation/tabid/737/Def

ault.aspx. 

The National Research Council (2010). Preparing Teachers: Building evidence for  

 sound policy. Washington, D.C. Author. 

The Renaissance Group. (2011). Principles. Retrieved from 

http://www.fresnostate.edu/renaissancegroup/about/principles.html. 

 

 

 



16	
     J. Britt, C. Ferguson, and J. Vare	
  
 

 

Page Intentionally Blank 


