Just as the Board of Trustees reviews and

sets the budget each year, The Program

Team, the group charged with
management of the academic programs at
the school, annually reviews our
curriculum. Typically, we have done so by
looking at pieces of it at a time.
Last year, as we began this process, we
decided to start with math. It had been 5
years since we adopted our current math
programs, so it was time to review what we
had in place. Simultaneously, we decided
also to examine our English curriculum.
As we embarked on our curriculum review, we understood that this process would and should
be influenced by other work we had undertaken as a Program Team, most notably our STEM
recognition application and our intentional adoption of innovative technologies, both of which
have helped us to update our instructional practices and to make our students interactions with
the curriculum more meaningful and relevant.
Furthermore, the Program Team
realized that we are on the cusp of the
two-year self-study portion of the SAIS
accreditation cycle. So whatever work we
did as it pertained to the curriculum
needed also to have an outcome that
would very clearly outline what we teach
and how teach it.
Lastly, as a PK-8 school, we have a
responsibility intentionally to review our
programs and to foster a curriculum that
prepares our students for a variety of
high schools AND one that not only
prepares them, but prepares them to
THRIVE at the next level. This
necessitates a curriculum that is rigorous.
As these discussion unfolded at the Program Team level, we began to recognize an emerging
sense of an academic identity and purpose at Canterbury School that seemed to have two main
areas of focus our curriculum must be global in scope and it must continue to support our
movement toward an inquiry based approach to instruction.

Research and best practice are

telling us (and certainly our lives can
confirm) that the world has changed
significantly and will continue to
change, so much so that the world
our children will enter into will be
one in which they are buffeted from
all sides by GLOBAL influences and
trends, rather than local or even
national ones. Realizing this, any
responsible and effective school
should be undertaking a curriculum
that is globally focused.
What we realized as a Program
Team is that, whatever decisions we
make pertaining to the curriculum, should be harmonized and unified, PK-8, by a global focus.
Secondly, we acknowledged the
instructional approach that weve been
moving toward over the past few years,
that of an inquiry-based approach to
teaching and learning. This is not only
in-line with best practice and current
research, but it is also an extension of the
work weve already undertaken in our
STEM recognition process and the
driving force behind remodeling the
Ketner STEM Center. By accepting the
inquiry-based approach, we realized it
needed to be an integral part of our
curriculum review and any program(s)
under consideration.
Having confirmed our conviction that our academic program review should be conducted
around these two points of focus (global in scope and inquiry based), we charged Susan
Gebhard, our Academic Dean, to look closely at our existing math and English, programs K-8,
to provide a thorough analysis, and to report back to the Program Team so we could identify
priorities moving forward with our curriculum.
Susan began her review in October of 2013 and continued exploring the math and English
programs throughout the winter.

She started by first conducting

deep explorations around WHAT
we were already teaching in math
(strands like numeration,
measurement, geometry) and
WHEN demonstrations of mastery
occur in Everyday Math and the
Connected Math Program, our
CMP, our current programs in
Lower School and Middle School,
respectively. She also spent lots of
time in classrooms watching our
teachers and witnessing our math
programs in action. These visits
were followed up with
conversations with the teachers
about what they perceived to be strengths and challenges of our existing curricula.
Part of this initial work led to the Math Nights we had for middle-school parents last spring
and for both lower-school and middle-school parents this fall. Attendees of these sessions
found them to be exceptionally informative, especially in terms of "unpacking" how we do
math across both divisions.
What Susan discovered about current math programs is that they both contain deep and
rigorous content. Both programs are also inquiry-based. These are real positives about the
mathematics instruction currently in place at Canterbury School. But, because we have two
different programs in the K-8 sequence, Everyday Math in the Lower School and CMP in
the Middle School, it is often difficult to determine precisely where certain topics and skills
have presented and to pinpoint when each should have been mastered. This, in turn, makes
it challenging to chart what students know and are able to do as they move between grades
and divisions and has disconcerting ramifications for our ability to differentiate, either for
enrichment or for remediation.
Next, Susan examined the K-8 English curricula in the same way. It should be noted that
Susan and the Program Team considered "English" from a holistic perspective, including all
its strands: reading and literature, writing, grammar, spelling, vocabulary, and speaking.
Susan visited classrooms and talked to teachers about our current English programs,
materials, activities, and resources, being particularly interested in the same basic questions
she'd asked about math. WHAT English content was taught to mastery and WHEN was this
mastery to happen? How did English in one grade lead to another? What content and
materials could we point to as being consistent across K-8?

During her review of our math and

English programs, textbooks, and
resources, Susan was also examining
the assessment tools we have in
place, either those that are part of
our existing programs or broader
standardized tests. She examined
assessment around several guiding
questions.
Of course assessment
measures what students know
and can do. But, are we using
assessment to inform our
instructional practices?
Is the material on the assessments we use well matched to the concepts we present in
our classrooms? What is the specific content behind the assessment questions? In other
words, are we testing what we teach?
Do we have any consistent assessment practices or measurements that are common
across grade levels, across divisions, or across K-8?
In spring of 2014, Susan presented a detailed curriculum report to the Program Team. We
examined and discussed her findings at length and then charged her with two important
summer tasks. First, she was to review alternative math programs and curricula, and,
secondly (and as time permitted) she was to extend her review process to evaluate English
programs. She was to make some very specific program recommendations to the Program
Team by the start of August to set the stage for the 2014-15 curricular work.
Susan identified four core
principles that guided her
evaluations of various programs
and materials over the summer.
These had originally stemmed
from Program Team conversations
and emerging understandings
about our academic identity
(already overviewed), but they were
refined by information Susan had
gleaned during her existing
program review.

Thus, the English and math curricula Susan considered over the summer were examined in
light of these four nonnegotiable aspects.
1. The curriculum must have an intentional global perspective and deliver rigorous
content that transcends local knowledge to focus on an international perspective of
understanding. Equally importantly, the materials and resources used to deliver this
content had to provide for collaborative inquiry-based instructional delivery.
2. Susan was seeking a program or set of materials that could harmonize math and
English curricula across K-8. Such a program would facilitate a very natural flow
from grade level to grade level and across divisions, and would allow for a "sameness of
experience" as kids moved through Canterbury.
3. The program needed to provide a clear set of learning goals, that is it needed to
articulate specifically what students should know and be able to do by the end of one
grade level. This would make for school-wide consistency of expectation and would also
help to facilitate both remediation and enrichment. Of course, the content also needed to
display a level of rigor appropriate to the independent school setting.
4. The curriculum should provide a way to measure students' mastery of specific learning
outcomes by means of intentional and well-aligned assessment tools, and-if at all
possibleshould benchmark learners' progress in a broader global context.
At the end of this process, Susan presented an executive summary of her summer review to
the Program Team for discussion and debate. At that time, the group determined which of
these curricula we felt would best suit the identified needs of Canterbury School.
The Program Team unanimously agreed that the curriculum materials we felt best matched
the core dimensions we had identified were those produced by Cambridge University Press
and aligned with the Curricular Frameworks created by Cambridge International
Examinations . Before we detail specifically these Cambridge programs match with each of
our four criteria, here is a brief overview of Cambridge Academics, itself.
Cambridge International Examinations and Cambridge University Press are
departments of the University of Cambridge
9000+ schools worldwide use the Cambridge curriculum materials.
Cambridge programs are represented by schools in over 160 countries.
98% of schools identifying themselves as Cambridge would recommend Cambridge
curricula to others as evidenced by the quote in the image above, said by a Danish
school administrator.

The Program Team

recommends that we adopt
curricula produced by
Cambridge International
Examinations and presented in
text materials by Cambridge
University Press, beginning in
the 2015-16 academic year.
For math, students in grades K5 would use the Cambridge
Primary Math Curriculum
Frameworks and the
Cambridge University Press
program, Primary Maths, stages
1-6.
Note that Cambridge levels its materials one number higher than the American grade level
for which it is intended. Hence, kindergarten would use stage 1, first grade would use stage 2,
etc.
Middle school students, grades 6-8, would use the Cambridge Secondary 1 Program
Curriculum Frameworks for maths stages 7-9, produced in the Cambridge University Press
series, Checkpoint Maths.
For English, we propose Cambridge Primary English stages 1-6 for grades K-5, and Cambridge
Checkpoint English, stages 7-9, for middle-school students in grades 6-8. The Cambridge
English Programs are complete English curricula, integrating all strands of English including
reading and literature, writing, grammar, word attack and spelling, vocabulary, and
speaking.
In considering the Cambridge Curriculum Frameworks, the Program Team is considering
science to be a delayed adoption (indicated by the parentheses in the diagram above). This is
because we are just coming off the extensive self-study of our science curriculum required by
our NCDPI STEM recognition process. For the past two years, the science team has been
reworking our science programs to showcase a problem-based/ inquiry model of
instructional design and to bring them into alignment with Next Generation Science Standards.
During the next year or two, our science teachers will examine the Cambridge Curriculum
Frameworks for science and see where and in what ways our newly-designed science
programs match up. If gaps and overlaps between Next Gen and Cambridge are identified, a
decision will be made about whether or not we need to adopt the Cambridge University
Press text materials for science.

Cambridge is perfectly matched to the core principles that the Program Team considered
essential components of any new program recommendations.

1. Intentionally developed to be an international program used in schools around the world,

Cambridge has, by necessity, an obvious global focus. In particular, Cambridge
Primary and Cambridge Secondary 1 are considered to be outstanding preparation for
high schools with similar international foci, such as IB institutions. Cambridge programs
have been intentionally structured to be sensitive to a wide variety of cultures, so students
using Cambridge develop a sense of global interdependence and cross-cultural
competence. The Cambridge materials are also specifically created around a studentcentered and inquiry-based model of instruction. As Anne Dias, the Head of
VIBGYOR School in India says, Cambridge is well-designed and well-structured. It
believes in child-centered learning in a child-friendly environment.
2. Both Cambridge Primary and Secondary 1 have been created along the same continuum
of globally focused learning outcomes. This means that each grade level will use
developmentally appropriate materials that are carefully sequenced and structured to flow
from one stage to the next. For this reason, we will be able to harmonize instruction
at Canterbury School from kindergarten to grade 8, while the rigor of the program will
ensure that Canterbury students continue to excel at the high schools of their choice. As
Alexander Carter, principal of an American High School states, Students are both
challenged and excited by Cambridge curricula and are extremely well-prepared to
succeed at the highest levels at even the most prestigious institutions.
3. The Cambridge Curriculum Frameworks provide a clear list of desired learning
outcomes and mastery levels for each subject area. Each grade levels builds upon
the concepts mastered in the grade before. This will ensure continuity of instruction,

including giving teachers an excellent view of concepts that need to be retaught or

enriched, either for a whole class for individual learners.
4. Cambridge Academics include an assessment program whereby tests are exactly
matched to the learning outcomes for which students are expected to show mastery.
These tests are meant to inform instruction and to assist teachers to provide structured
feedback to learners and parents. Additionally, the Cambridge assessments are
benchmarked internationally.
In short, the work weve done over the
past eighteen months is really important
and cant stop. The Program Team has a
responsibility to continue these essential
efforts around curriculum so as to
continue the Canterbury tradition of
providing outstanding education for the
whole child!