Curriculum Compacting

A Systematic Procedure for Modifying the Curriculum for Above Average Students

Curriculum Compacting is a technique designed to make adjustments for students in any subject or grade level. It involves defining goals and outcomes of a particular unit or segment of instruction, determining (and documenting) which students have already mastered most or all of a specified set of objectives, and providing replacement activities that are more challenging and a better use of student time.

The background literature (previous research) discussed in the article relates to the idea that, though we differentiate instruction for students with learning difficulties, we do not have comparable adjustments for students with above average abilities. Use of textbooks was examined, noting that texts seem to have been ‘dumbed down’ over the past 10 – 15 years, mostly in the following areas: readability level, maturity level, difficulty of questions, and extent of illustrations. Texts also incorporate a large percentage of repetition. Students in grades 2 – 5 only get on average 40% new content over the course of a year, and that drops to 25% for 8th grade students.

The University of Connecticut’s NationalResearchCenter on the Gifted and Talented examined strategies that teachers use to modify the curriculum to accommodate high ability students. The research included 27 school districts with 465 second through sixth grade classroom teachers throughout the country. The only criteria were no previous training or implementation of curriculum compacting, and a willingness to accept random assignment to a treatment group or control group. There were 3 treatment groups: all groups had videotape training and a book about the compacting process, group 2 also had two hours of group compacting simulations conducted by a trainer, and group 3 had the same training as group 2, plus 6 to 10 hours of peer coaching throughout the year. There was a control group also included in the study.

40% - 50% of traditional classroom material was compacted for targeted students in one or more content areas. In science, students who had half of their curriculum eliminated scored significantly higher on science achievement than their peers in the control group. Students whose curriculum was specifically compacted in math scored significantly higher as well. The process was considered effective, as 95% of teachers were able to identify high ability students, and 80% were able to document the curriculum that high ability students had yet to master, list appropriate instructional strategies for documenting mastery, and document an appropriate mastery standard. Replacement strategies include enrichment (used by 95% of teachers), acceleration (used by 18%) and other (including peer tutoring, cooperative learning, correcting papers, and other teacher assistance tasks). More teachers would have used acceleration, but were hampered by district policies preventing students from working in textbooks above grade level.

Discussion Questions:

  1. What are pros/cons to curriculum compacting?
  2. Is it worth the extra effort?
  3. Is it better at elementary, middle, or high school?
  4. What subjects (if any) would curriculum compacting not be a successful approach?
  5. Would you ever consider trying this in your classrooms?