The two comments from my most recent post have me reflecting on our curriculum work; the intent, the process, the response, and the impact on student learning. I have asked a few people directly involved in the work to share their thinking with me that I will in turn share in my next post. Is there a right and wrong as it relates to a mandated curriculum? How much guidance is enough to guarantee consistency for all students?
Thanks to Crystal and Kevin for sharing their feelings that are similar to some I received from an earlier post. I look forward to others and am open to being influenced as we make these critical decisions.
9 comments:
http://www.dubeandassociates.com/resources/growth_articles/mta_russian_dolls.pdf
I think the Russian Doll analogy applies to this and also our tech work lately.
From a principal’s perspective, a standardized curriculum is crucial to giving students an equal opportunity to learn. While there should be opportunity for “approved individualization to achieve the same goals”, there has to be a core set of skills, habits of mind, and content that is clearly outlined in engaging ways to be taught. There are several reasons for this:
1. Different teachers have different skill levels in writing curriculum. Many teachers, with the best intentions, have been offering students a curriculum that is not well-rounded and not focused on skills and processes, but they thought they were offering a really great curriculum.
2. Different teachers have different levels of ability to think progressively in how to engage students in relevant learning. Very few people can do what Nancy does with a curriculum.
3. Many teachers at my level want the consistency between teachers. They don’t like being “hung out to dry” when other teachers are easier or more rigorous.
A private thought that I will share with everyone… I have been lax in my walkthroughs for the last 4 years because when I would go from class to class, teachers were all over the place in what they were teaching and how they were teaching it. I didn’t know where to begin to bring order to the chaos. Now, there is curriculum and a clear direction. Now I can work with teachers about questioning strategies and making the most of the learning opportunity with students within the framework we have been given. Now I complete about 10 walkthroughs a week which means I have been in classrooms about 60 times. My time in there is much more focused and I have a better “big picture” of a teacher’s strengths, growth areas, and over all style of teaching. None of this is hampered by having a great curriculum to teach!
Again, I really believe there is room for experienced teachers to offer a more individual curriculum, but it does need to go through some process to make sure that it is aligned with what we want students to know and be able to do.
As a parent and as a principal, I could not ask for a better learning experience for the students going through TMS. While there is always room for improvement and growth, I think we are at a really amazing place when we don’t have to think about what we have to teach, instead, we can think about maximizing the experience and really connecting with the kids.
I believe that having a mandated curriculum takes away from our classroom 10 ideals. If were teaching students to use the habits of mind and they truly are our focus, then in my opinion curriculum doesn’t really matter.
Those who have worked with me know that I very much enjoy the creative act of curriculum design. I like to think that I'm pretty good at it. As a teacher, however, my primary job when I’m not actually with kids shouldn’t have to be designing curriculum. My job should be to work at knowing where each of my students is in their development of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes we want them to acquire. My creative energies should be directed at responding when students do not acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes through the lessons I had hoped would be sufficient for all learners.
When I started at Tahoma I was a brand new teacher. I had four preps, three books, and no curriculum. I worked ridiculously hard to have something to offer my students each day. It is not reasonable to expect new teachers to make up their own curriculum, nor is it reasonable to expect their colleagues to walk them through what they do each day. In the process of trying to create curriculum every day I developed a working pattern, a mental habit that hindered my growth as an educator. My focus was, necessarily, on what I was doing as a teacher, on what I was going to put in front of my students. My focus was not, and couldn’t have been, on my students. It has only been in the last few years that I turned my attention toward attending to the individual needs of my students (something I attribute to my colleagues at Tahoma High School; Terry Duty, Kimberly Allison, Dawn Wakeley, Mike Hanson, and Bill Weis in particular). Not coincidentally, it has only been in the last few years that I had a given curriculum that took the burden of basic curriculum planning off of my plate.
Some time ago the secondary science teachers got together to problem solve. Our students were not doing well and our curriculum was woefully outdated. We established what a good curriculum and quality instruction would look like, did a search, and came up empty. We decided to write our own. We poured our hearts, and some of us even poured our souls, into creating the best curriculum we possibly could. After seven years of work we chucked it all. Someone had finally published a curriculum that aligned with what we knew to be best practice. All that work we did! We tossed it and didn’t look back. At the time I thought we had the expertise to create an excellent curriculum that would support teachers in growing in their art. I now know better. I am a professional educator. I know something about supporting students in learning. But I did not, do not, and never will have the time, expertise, and resources I would need to produce the best possible curriculum for my students. Nor should that be where I direct my energy. Some see a given curriculum as a shackle; I see it as a gift.
It has only been recently that I have fully embraced Classroom10 as our mission. I could talk about thinking skills, the Outcomes & Indicators, etc. but I did not truly embrace them. I could talk the talk but certainly wasn’t walking the walk. Why did it take me so long? I’m sure at least part of the reason why is that I was trained in teaching the content and skills of science not in teaching such subjects as evaluation, finding humor, or community contribution. I’d need some help with those. How long have I known about nested objectives, that I was supposed to be using science content to teach the habits of mind and such? I have known this for at least nine years. How close did I get to exemplifying Classroom10? I didn’t get very far. I’m sure that teachers of different disciplines and of different grade levels have different levels of need. On average, however, I feel confident that the truth for most of us is we will never get to Classroom10 without a curriculum designed to support us in getting there.
Much of the comments I am reading about this particular topic have to do with the scripted/mandated curriculum being a "jumping-off point." If this is really the case, fantastic. I think we would be hard-pressed to find teachers that are opposed to a resource like that that we can use as-is if needed but can also modify if needed. For example, if a scripted lesson could be better taught with a tech tool I've discovered, I would be able to make that modification. Or if I feel like another lesson has worked better to teach a certain content skill, I would be free to use that instead.
The problem is, this is not the idea that is being communicated to teachers in my department. What we have been told is that the lessons and units that are given to us are expected to be taught as-is; if they are not, that is a problem. If an administrator comes and observes a lesson not being taught the way other teachers are teaching it, there may be consequences. This is where teachers feel stripped of their freedom, their dignity, and their personality.
The question is, which of these two is it? Is this scripted curriculum meant to be used as a guide for instruction, or is this curriculum going to be an expectation. And in either case, why is it a teacher in the district (but outside of our department) being paid to write our curriculum?
One other point I'm curious about. I've seen or heard a couple of people mention/advocate that "experienced" teachers would be free to adapt lessons. How do you define an experienced teacher? Is it a teacher with X years under his/her belt? If so, this seems to imply that only old teachers are good teachers and that young teachers have nothing to offer the profession. Or perhaps you will create a standardized test that will effectively measure the "goodness" of a teacher...
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 appreciate the many thoughts that have been shared regarding creating and implementing a core curriculum in the Tahoma School District. As the person responsible for providing leadership in determining our district curriculum, I believe that we have a deep obligation to creating and implementing a coherent curriculum that is tightly aligned with state and district standards including the key elements of Classroom 10. Our PLC work is driven by three key questions:
1. What should students know and be able to do at each grade level and in each content area?
2. How will we know that the students are learning?
3. What will we do to support students who are not learning along with the students who have already learned the grade level expectations?
A core curriculum is designed to address questions number one and two. We are responsible for ensuring a scope and sequence that builds on previously learned skills and that prepares our students to meet state and district standards. Bob Marzano, in his book What Works in Schools, identifies a "guaranteed and viable curriculum" as the number one factor that improves student learning. When we offer little more than an outline for a grade level, we leave much to chance regarding what is actually taught in the classrooms.
We have been developing core curriculum units since 1995 at the elementary level and now have a completely defined core curriculum in all content areas with assessments that mark progress against standards. The curriculum integrates thinking skills, Habits of Mind, and district outcomes with core content and skills. Our elementary students perform at the very highest levels on the WASL and demonstrate our outcomes and indicators through the project work that they complete in the classrooms.
In the last two years, we have been working to document our secondary curriculum in the core areas. Thanks to many lead teachers, we have created units at grades 6 and 7 that provide guidance to new and experienced teachers in implementing Classroom 10 including using technology as a tool to support powerful teaching and learning. When a new teacher is hired into our district, we now have units to provide to those teachers so that they can focus on quality instruction rather than daily lesson planning. Even with the core units, teachers need to review the lessons and personalize the instruction so that the activities work for them with their students. We definitely want educators who are complex thinkers and who focus on the key concepts and skills in unit lessons.
Classroom 10 is a sophisticated instructional model, much richer and more complex than previous expectations for teaching and learning. I believe that we have a responsibility to provide models of Classroom 10 unit and lesson design as a way to give high support to teachers who are experiencing high demand. Teachers can then collaborate and work together on instructional practices, review student work, and determine even better methods for reaching all learners.
Do we expect the core curriculum units to be taught? Yes, with the opportunity to both help to develop the units and to provide feedback for revisions. In many cases, we are writing options for instructional practices into the units to honor the diverse styles of our teachers and to accommodate the diverse needs of our students. At the heart of our work is collaboration with the teachers in identifying core content, ensuring scope and sequence with skill development, and integrating thinking skills, Habits of Mind, and our district outcomes with best instructional practices.
I appreciate the passion teachers have for creativity and meeting the needs of their students. The core units are intended as a support and not as a deterrent for this creativity. They represent our best collaborative efforts to provide excellent models of quality teaching materials and experiences consistent with state and district requirements. Let's continue the dialogue as we work to develop and implement a quality core curriculum that meets student needs and honors the commitment of our teachers to the best possible learning experiences for our students.
To me, the issue here isn't that curriculum units are being mandated; it's the way the curriculum units are being mandated. It seems that teachers are feeling insolated and being called out as not good enough and T&L/Administrators are feeling that more can be done to ensure students are learning and being successful. I think we can afree that both parties ultimately want what's best for students and if curriculum units are being developed to do this, then I think teachers can get on board with that idea provided that the units are presented in a friendly way.
Teachers are emotional and don't like being told what to do in a matter of fact way (or at least I am and I don't), but I think we can easily be coaxed into doing something when given the right reasons and the right opportunities to give our input. Again, I'm not part of these curriculum mandates, but I can imagine how I'd feel if I was.
I agree with many of Crystal's comments. I have a limited perspective of our system (only experienced with science content at secondary level). From reading Kevin's post I am not sure that implementation has been the same at all levels for all subject areas.
We have gone through two curriculum changes in secondary science since in my time. The first was in the 90's. We had a scattered, inconsistent curriculum. Nancy led ALL the secondary science teachers through the process of what would be the right direction for our curriculum to go. By the time our work was done there was little choice but to accept ownership because we had all been involved in the process and had a chance to influence the decision.
A few years back Dawn did a fabulous job of leading the 9-10 science teachers through the same process when it became clear that student success was not where it should be. Dawn gave all teachers a voice through the process and the team all saw that adoption of our current curriculum was best for kids.
In both examples the decisions were made with teachers and T & L experts in the room. I have assumed that all of our curriculum decisions are made this way. I am not sure that teachers should expect more (or less) than to have a voice in this manner.
Teachers will be better at implementing a curriculum if they have ownership of it. They are more likely to have ownership of it if they feel like they were a part of its creation/adoption. People tend to treat a rental car different than a car they own. It makes sense to have people own the curriculum and not rent it.
Teachers are a great resource whose input should be valued in this decision making process. This has occurred in the last two science adoptions and been important in reliable implementation.
Mike Hanson
Post a Comment