Using the Advocacy Design Center model to assess the alignment of a school district's digital curriculum and teacher evaluation systems

This researcher used the Advocacy Design Center model to analyze the Dealian school district's efforts to align its digital curriculum system and its teacher evaluation system. A design team of teachers and administrators developed these two central systems. The systems were constructed to transform the district's traditional curriculum contained in written guides to a standards-based system with the inherent benefits of a web-based digital system. Links were developed between the curriculum system and the new evaluation system that was adopted by the district to address the state's new definition of excellent teaching that calls for teachers to know the state student performance standards.; Now, five years into the use of the system, this researcher examined the success of the district's efforts to integrate the two systems. Schools are social institutions and all involved in the schools represent a vast array of beliefs and ideas about the elements of excellent schools. This researcher used the Advocacy Design Center model as a framework to analyze the effectiveness of the intended alignment between the systems. The researcher examined the two central systems in relation to the elements of the ADC model involving instruction, organization, governance, and accountability. Responding to the 29 guiding questions from the ADC a survey was developed to ascertain teacher and administrator dispositions about the two systems.; A primary question emerged. The systems may have been integrated digitally and to some extent by decree, but are teachers and administrators socially engaged in the system? The researcher indicated that teachers do engage in conversations with colleagues about performance standards, best teaching practices, and authentic assessments. These social behaviors are primary objectives of the central systems. It can be concluded that the digital curriculum system contributes to these positive outcomes, but it cannot be concluded that the digital curriculum system or the relationship between the central systems are solely responsible for these outcomes. The study and its survey of teacher and administrator opinions about the systems is informative for the district and for others preparing to engage in significant systemic change, especially change related to these two central systems.