I very much enjoyed the many comments to my most resent post about a mandated curriculum. As expected, there are varying views about the importance of a common curriculum that includes daily lessons. It is interesting that the responses were I believe all from secondary teachers representing various content areas. Interesting, because we have had an integrated curriculum in place for many years at the elementary level that was received with mixed emotions when first introduced, but is now simply what we do. And, there were no comments from teachers at this level. I wonder what the future will be related to the units being developed in these secondary classrooms?
As always, the comments provided me and others with much to think about. We have not done an effective job of articulating the rationale and process for a common curriculum. The research is clear, but we have not found the vehicle to make all staff aware of this need to influence academic success for all students. It is also true that the process and parameters vary by content level with those like math that are textbook based and elective programs engaging in different work than other content areas. Even within the other content areas there are different processes in place. We will be discussing this and following up with a written response and opportunity for conversation.
I think it is important to understand that the work is partly in response to concerns from building administrators wanting to focus on instructional process, but struggling to do so in the absence of a common curriculum. Amy shared this in her comment that does a good job of bringing some clarity to the need. We will continue our work with a focus on improved communication of the need and process and increased understanding of who is doing what and why as it relates to implementing a common curriculum. We need to find a place for the teacher voice beyond those actually engaged in the writing.
Though I don't often respond to negative comments I will say that those of Anonymous are both interesting and disconcerting.
"If what teachers in the district lack is the wherewithal to integrate thinking skills and habits of mind into content lessons, why are our professional development hours spent listening to bland presentations about Classroom 10, grading CBAs and core assessments, or listening to expensive guest speakers? Wouldn't it make more sense to train teachers how to integrate thinking skills and habits of mind into lessons and units? It seems like this would all be moot and unnecessary if teachers were trained to do this work themselves.If what teachers in the district lack is the wherewithal to integrate thinking skills and habits of mind into content lessons, why are our professional development hours spent listening to bland presentations about Classroom 10, grading CBAs and core assessments, or listening to expensive guest speakers? Wouldn't it make more sense to train teachers how to integrate thinking skills and habits of mind into lessons and units? It seems like this would all be moot and unnecessary if teachers were trained to do this work themselves."
- I have been superintendent for many years and I can only recall one time in all those years paying for an "expensive guest speaker" and that was Ian Jukes.
- Understanding Classroom 10 is necessary before successfully implementing it.
- Grading CBA's and core assessments in a scoring conference format the research would suggest is one of the most effective ways to influence and support quality learning and teaching when followed by conversations about instruction.
- Yes, it does make sense to support integrating thinking skills and habits of mind into lessons and units. This is what the curriculum is doing and with it the focus can shift to instructional practice aligned with Classroom 10.
- In regards to the "bland presentation" I think it would be important for you to give this feedback to your building leadership team since they are planning the presentations.
1 comment:
Excellent post. I would have responded sooner, but was out of town for the weekend.
I think the critical statement in your response is that "We have not done an effective job of articulating the rationale and process for a common curriculum." I think that, from our end, that is definitely a big issue. I feel that this idea has been been thrown at us quite suddenly and without reason. One thing that would be helpful is if we knew and could look at the research that supposedly supports the idea of a common/mandated/scripted curriculum (whatever we're calling it).
As I mentioned before, though, the second issue (which you also mentioned) is simply the lack of clarity regarding the strictness of the shared lessons. Is there room for some modification or adaptation on the go? Do changes have to be approved by some administrator? Are the lessons strict, "cookie cutter" lessons? Are there just a couple of units that we will have lessons for, or will this be a year-round curriculum? These are questions that haven't really been answered for us yet.
One last thing: while you appear to have taken some heat on this particular issue (I'm certainly guilty of that), I hope you realize the level of respect I (and many of my colleagues) have for you. I really appreciate that you use your blog to communicate ideas such as these to a wider audience, even if it means opening yourself up for criticism. It allows me to at least feel like I am part of the discussion (even if I'm really not) - something that makes me feel a bit more like a respected professional. Yet this kind of openness is something that a lot of people simply would not do, and I thank you for that.
Post a Comment