One negative impact of ELL laws on curriculum development is presented in Education Week (Zehr, 2009). In schools with a small number of ELLs, "…first generation immigrant students do better academically if they aren't placed in an ESL class" (Zehr, p. 1). This may be true because ELLs aren't invited to access to mainstream "…core academic curriculum"; also, their counterparts that are in mainstream classes with no ESL available "do better academically than students who are put in ESL classes" (again this is only true in schools with few ELLs) (Zehr, p. 1). A positive impact vis-a-vis the benefits of SIOP for non-ELL teachers is that the SIOP protocol helps "distinguish teachers" (who work with the program) from other teachers with no experience in SIOP (ARCC).
THREE: How has the gifted educational movement impacted the evolution of curriculum development? Address both negative and positive impacts…provide examples.
For one thing, educators have seen the need to develop curriculum specific to the needs of gifted students. Curriculum for gifted students offers "…content related to broad-based issues and themes" and it "focuses on cross-disciplinary concepts" while exposing students to "multiple perspectives and domains of inquiry" (Hockett, 407). By exposing bright / gifted learners to many perspectives the curriculum in effect is the future for learning while the NCLB "teach to the test" concept reflects the past. Curricula for bright students attempts to "…accommodate the development of advanced understanding, and therefore," students learn that complex issues are simply there to be understood and problems are there to be solved (Hockett, 408).
Can the positives from curriculum developed for gifted students spill over to general education-related curriculum? On page 413 Hockett writes that curriculum experts "endorse meaningful outcomes" for both gifted and general education. General education curriculum leaders view expertise as "…developmental and progressive," and gifted curriculum leaders see expertise as a way to develop talent (Hockett, 413). Both agree that the goal should be for students to acquire "…deep or advanced understanding" and both agree that curriculum should be "flexible" (Hockett, 413).
The fact that curriculum designers for gifted programs have a different slant from those creating curriculum for general educational classes doesn't take away from the fact that gifted curriculum offers "…promise for designing curriculum that conforms to general education" as well (Hockett, 415). That is the answer to the question as to how gifted curricula impact curricula for general students.
As to the negative impacts of the Integrated Curriculum Model, on page 419, Hockett points to disadvantages that teachers and students reported "…a lack of variety in reading materials and teachers noted a lack of flexibility in selecting unit materials." Teachers also indicated they needed more "…content-knowledge background to implement the [gifted] units (Hockett, 419). The Multiple Menu Model (MMM) is believed to have a positive impact on general education curriculum design because the "Knowledge Menu" of the MMM requires the teachers to obtain "…a deep understanding of the discipline" in order that they can then guide general education students to think in a larger context.
In conclusion, the federal laws in America require schools to make English language learning opportunities available for non-English speakers, and this has been a good idea from the time the OCR published a memo until today. Also, this paper shows how curriculum has evolved following federal laws and policies, and how curriculum for gifted students has also had a positive impact on general education students.