This paper examines Fenwick W. English's framework for re-conceptualizing curriculum as presented in Deciding What to Teach and Test: Designing, Aligning and Auditing the Curriculum. English identifies three distinct curricula operating in schools—written, taught, and tested—and argues that without deliberate alignment, these three can become contradictory or competing forces. The paper explains the purpose and process of a curriculum audit, evaluates how well one charter school employing an expeditionary learning model meets English's five audit standards, and reflects on the challenges posed by competing state and federal mandates. The author concludes that while standardized testing currently drives alignment in many schools, this is not the holistic, goal-driven alignment English envisions.
The paper demonstrates applied theoretical analysis: the student takes an established academic framework (English's three-curriculum model and audit standards) and systematically tests it against a concrete institutional context. Rather than simply summarizing the source, the author evaluates whether real conditions meet theoretical requirements, which is a core skill in graduate-level education coursework.
The paper opens by introducing and explaining English's framework, then defines and explains the curriculum audit process. It transitions into a reflective application section that assesses the author's own school against English's standards. The paper closes with a critical observation about standardized testing as a de facto — but inadequate — form of curriculum alignment. The bibliography cites three relevant education texts in a consistent format.
In his book Deciding What to Teach and Test: Designing, Aligning and Auditing the Curriculum, author and educator Fenwick W. English provides readers with a three-step approach to re-conceptualizing curriculum. According to English, there are three distinct approaches to curriculum: the written curriculum, the taught curriculum, and the tested curriculum. The written curriculum includes published curriculum guides, state standards, and textbooks. The taught curriculum encompasses daily instruction and classroom teaching. The tested curriculum includes standardized tests as well as teacher-made assessments.
As English explains, "These three curricula deal with content and express the absolute possibility that there could be in schools three unrelated contents floating around, unconnected to one another." In other words, English argues that without deliberate alignment, schools can end up operating with three often contradictory and sometimes competing curricula simultaneously.
English argues that the starting point for all curriculum re-conceptualization is to audit the use of the three curricula in a particular school and then work to align them. A key step in the alignment process is determining the purpose of assessment. Because all students must be evaluated in some form, the written and taught curricula must be designed to meet the school's assessment goals. However, this alignment is not possible until each of the three curricula has been clearly identified and understood — a process accomplished through a formal curriculum audit.
Without this foundational audit, schools risk perpetuating a situation in which individual teachers, departments, or grade levels operate from entirely different — and potentially incompatible — curricular frameworks, undermining any coherent educational vision.
The purpose of a curriculum audit is to evaluate a school's overall curriculum structure — or, in most cases, its multiple structures. The audit focuses on whether a particular school's curriculum is properly aligned, meaning equalized and coordinated across the written, taught, and tested curricula. The goal is to identify areas for improvement and to bring these three curricula together into one coherent, coordinated school curriculum.
English outlines five audit standards that schools should meet to demonstrate effective curriculum alignment. These standards serve as the evaluative criteria against which any given school's curricular health can be measured. Meeting all five standards indicates that a school has successfully unified its curricular purposes and practices.
English's three-curriculum framework offers a practical and persuasive model for diagnosing and remedying curricular fragmentation in schools. The distinction between written, taught, and tested curricula highlights how easily these three dimensions can drift apart without intentional coordination. While standardized testing has become a dominant force that imposes a kind of de facto alignment, this approach is reductive and does not fulfill the goal of a coherent, school-wide curriculum that serves all learners.
For the charter school discussed here, the path forward lies in completing its transition to a fully realized expeditionary learning model while simultaneously satisfying external mandates — a challenging but necessary balance. As English suggests, the curriculum audit process remains the essential first step toward achieving that integration once conditions allow.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.