Do all students have a capacity to learn? Absolutely! Does our education system provide the most effective form of instruction? Not always. Teaching at a struggling school, it is very easy for many teachers to assume that the students "just can't do it". I find this to be a completely unfair judgment of so many of our students. I KNOW that our students can succeed. I have to believe that, or I wouldn't be able head to work each morning. The question is whether WE, as the teachers in our building, have the tools to help them succeed. Are we providing them with the best education? Are we motivating them to WANT to succeed? Are we giving them authentic material that they can see pertaining to their life? I would love to say that we are, but the results are not reflecting this. Our methods are not working. So is that the fault of the students? No. As the teachers, adults and guides for our students, it is our responsibility to discover what does promote active learning in our school. The students take what we are giving them, but is what we are giving them right?
While reading Socializing Intelligence, I was able to completely relate to and see the effectiveness of the Asian cultures' ability to create learning-oriented environments rather than performance-oriented environments. Students in learning-oriented environments are motivated to ask questions, discover learning and simply "want to know more". This in turn leads to a higher level of ability, which in the end results in higher levels of performance. The public education system that I know of tends to begin with performance-oriented environments in hopes that "being successful" will spark motivation and ability. However, if the students are hindered early in the process, they will not be motivated and their ability will be stifled. That outlook on education was such an eye opener. At my school I have often said, "the students are doing everything we ask them to do, but are we asking them to do the right things?". To me, the answer is quite clearly "no".
As any important step in change, admitting the problem is the most difficult but necessary avenue to success. As teachers, we sometimes have to admit that as hard as we work, we may not be working on the right things. Though it may be hard to swallow, failure is not the result of our students, but the result of a process gone wrong. If the students are not learning, it's because we are not teaching it in a way that is most appropriate for them.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
Curriculum in My Classroom
Some may not see it as such, but I have had the unique experience of working in a struggling district. I have spent the 3 years of my teaching career seeing the change from a lack of an effective curriculum to instruction completely driven by a well-planned, fully implemented curriculum.
When I first started, my district was struggling to keep our heads above the NCLB/CATS waters, however there seemed to be little change occurring in order to offer up some form of organized success. Within the last two years, administration at both the district and school levels have changed over and the effect was immediately felt. Before, our curriculum was designed around state standards as "End of Primary" and then Fourth, and Fifth. There was little to look at in terms of activities or what was expected at each specific grade, we just knew what was expected overall. Being a kindergarten teacher, it was difficult for me to rationalize what was being taught at the other grade levels. As kindergarten teachers, we would find that while teaching "patterns", the first and second grades were doing the exact same activities. Not at all what you would call an effective curriculum. This soon led to our school pushing to "unpack the curriculum". We would meet in core content areas with a representative in each grade level. We would determine what part of the core content or state standard was appropriate for each grade level, as well as the appropriate taxonomy to be used by each. We began building a system where each grade level would dive deeper into the content than the previous grade. This helped our teachers to establish what we exactly needed to be focused on at each grade level.
While our school was busy breaking down the "curriculum barriers" of our district, the powers that be at the district level were beginning to do the same. Our district is primarily considered a Title I district, which has allowed for government funding to be used in the form of content coaches that are available to every school. Over this past summer, our content coaches took core content and state standards and completely broke them down into objectives, congruent activities, vocabulary, and possible forms of assessments for each grade level. This new curriculum guide has become an extremely valuable resource to all of our staff. I use the term "guide" lightly as we are required to follow it as this is enforced by district walk throughs where the coaches and principals evaluate lesson plans to see that they are all aligned to the curriculum. While this may seem to have taken the creative juices away from the teachers, the coaches considered that as well. Once a month, every teacher attends a "collaborative planning" in a specific content area across the district. At these collaborative plannings I am able to meet with the content coaches and other kindergarten teachers from across the district to discuss what worked in the curriculum, what didn't and how we plan to implement the upcoming weeks of curriculum. The coaches listen to us, learn from us and then add our ideas onto our interactive web-based curriculum guide. We then return to our schools and share out with our grade level teams. These collaborative plannings have not only given us an outlet to express concerns and joys, but also great partnerships with other teachers in the district. We are often emailing each other tools that we are finding successful and sharing ideas on a more daily basis if necessary.
The newly created curriculum guide designed by my district seems to fall right in line with Backward Design as we focus on rigorous assessments and task analysis (prerequisite knowledge and skills) prior to instruction. Our district has also acknowledged the issue of teacher implementation as discussed by Morey Schwartz but mandating district walk-throughs where we are scored by our "proficiency" levels in following the curriculum guide, among other school related needs and concerns. An aspect that our curriculum does lack, however, is application and transferance. In the days of state testing and NCLB, the concept of "post school" seems to become lost. There are times when I feel that I am forced to teach a student to properly take a test and answer the Open Response question with the adequate amount of bullets and graphic organizers instead of focusing on "do you know the content?", "do you understand the content?", "do you relate to this content?", and "will this content help you become a productive and self-assured adult?". As much as I break down "power verbs" in order for a student to properly answer a question, I'm not so sure that they will be quizzed about power verbs in a job interview. Hopefully, in the time to come the need for application tasks and transferance will be considered and applied. Till then, I will continue to shut my classroom door when I am focusing on an application task. :)
When I first started, my district was struggling to keep our heads above the NCLB/CATS waters, however there seemed to be little change occurring in order to offer up some form of organized success. Within the last two years, administration at both the district and school levels have changed over and the effect was immediately felt. Before, our curriculum was designed around state standards as "End of Primary" and then Fourth, and Fifth. There was little to look at in terms of activities or what was expected at each specific grade, we just knew what was expected overall. Being a kindergarten teacher, it was difficult for me to rationalize what was being taught at the other grade levels. As kindergarten teachers, we would find that while teaching "patterns", the first and second grades were doing the exact same activities. Not at all what you would call an effective curriculum. This soon led to our school pushing to "unpack the curriculum". We would meet in core content areas with a representative in each grade level. We would determine what part of the core content or state standard was appropriate for each grade level, as well as the appropriate taxonomy to be used by each. We began building a system where each grade level would dive deeper into the content than the previous grade. This helped our teachers to establish what we exactly needed to be focused on at each grade level.
While our school was busy breaking down the "curriculum barriers" of our district, the powers that be at the district level were beginning to do the same. Our district is primarily considered a Title I district, which has allowed for government funding to be used in the form of content coaches that are available to every school. Over this past summer, our content coaches took core content and state standards and completely broke them down into objectives, congruent activities, vocabulary, and possible forms of assessments for each grade level. This new curriculum guide has become an extremely valuable resource to all of our staff. I use the term "guide" lightly as we are required to follow it as this is enforced by district walk throughs where the coaches and principals evaluate lesson plans to see that they are all aligned to the curriculum. While this may seem to have taken the creative juices away from the teachers, the coaches considered that as well. Once a month, every teacher attends a "collaborative planning" in a specific content area across the district. At these collaborative plannings I am able to meet with the content coaches and other kindergarten teachers from across the district to discuss what worked in the curriculum, what didn't and how we plan to implement the upcoming weeks of curriculum. The coaches listen to us, learn from us and then add our ideas onto our interactive web-based curriculum guide. We then return to our schools and share out with our grade level teams. These collaborative plannings have not only given us an outlet to express concerns and joys, but also great partnerships with other teachers in the district. We are often emailing each other tools that we are finding successful and sharing ideas on a more daily basis if necessary.
The newly created curriculum guide designed by my district seems to fall right in line with Backward Design as we focus on rigorous assessments and task analysis (prerequisite knowledge and skills) prior to instruction. Our district has also acknowledged the issue of teacher implementation as discussed by Morey Schwartz but mandating district walk-throughs where we are scored by our "proficiency" levels in following the curriculum guide, among other school related needs and concerns. An aspect that our curriculum does lack, however, is application and transferance. In the days of state testing and NCLB, the concept of "post school" seems to become lost. There are times when I feel that I am forced to teach a student to properly take a test and answer the Open Response question with the adequate amount of bullets and graphic organizers instead of focusing on "do you know the content?", "do you understand the content?", "do you relate to this content?", and "will this content help you become a productive and self-assured adult?". As much as I break down "power verbs" in order for a student to properly answer a question, I'm not so sure that they will be quizzed about power verbs in a job interview. Hopefully, in the time to come the need for application tasks and transferance will be considered and applied. Till then, I will continue to shut my classroom door when I am focusing on an application task. :)
Friday, September 11, 2009
Modern Curriculum
Curriculum is the necessary evil in terms of education. Many teachers feel that it is a barrier to their creativity and individuality, while others see it as a guideline and road map on the trip of academics. While I see the necessity of a coherent curriculum, I also see that our country's concept of an effective curriculum is grossly outdated.
While reading Task 1's articles, I initially thought that I had a "favorite". However, the more I read and the more that I evaluated each suggested curriculum structure's philosophies, I realized that there isn't really a "favorite". While each author was waving the flag for their concept, as an objective outsider, I was able to see the valid points of each and realize that usually the best answer is one that is a compromise.
In a "perfect" curriculum, I could see William Wraga's suggested Connected Core Curriculum as a baseline. A curriculum could be established that grants common goals for each subject. My teaching team has a similar structure, where we attempt to combine "themes" across the curriculum. We choose a topic and use it in all core contents, using writing as a connector for each. This is often easier said than done, so a curriculum designed around the Connected Core Curriculum would be very useful. While I understand the philosphy of Arthur Applebee's Conversational Curriculum, I do not think that it would be effective in all areas of teaching at all grade levels and for all students. Intrinsic learners come to mind as being the most negatively effected by a complete curriculum in this format. However, I do feel that the ideas of Conversations could be used within a Connected Core Curriculum. In the same mindset, Grant Wiggins proposal of a curriculum designed to make students more responsible for their education in the form of questions is a much needed concept, I do not see it playing out as the only form of curriculum. A lot of educational programs now are used in this manner, allowing students to reach an understanding on their own terms through manipulatives, questioning, and research.
A curriculum design implementing all three of these philosophies could be the most accurate and effective way to progress in education as the world progresses around us, creating what could truly be termed a Modern Curriculum.
While reading Task 1's articles, I initially thought that I had a "favorite". However, the more I read and the more that I evaluated each suggested curriculum structure's philosophies, I realized that there isn't really a "favorite". While each author was waving the flag for their concept, as an objective outsider, I was able to see the valid points of each and realize that usually the best answer is one that is a compromise.
In a "perfect" curriculum, I could see William Wraga's suggested Connected Core Curriculum as a baseline. A curriculum could be established that grants common goals for each subject. My teaching team has a similar structure, where we attempt to combine "themes" across the curriculum. We choose a topic and use it in all core contents, using writing as a connector for each. This is often easier said than done, so a curriculum designed around the Connected Core Curriculum would be very useful. While I understand the philosphy of Arthur Applebee's Conversational Curriculum, I do not think that it would be effective in all areas of teaching at all grade levels and for all students. Intrinsic learners come to mind as being the most negatively effected by a complete curriculum in this format. However, I do feel that the ideas of Conversations could be used within a Connected Core Curriculum. In the same mindset, Grant Wiggins proposal of a curriculum designed to make students more responsible for their education in the form of questions is a much needed concept, I do not see it playing out as the only form of curriculum. A lot of educational programs now are used in this manner, allowing students to reach an understanding on their own terms through manipulatives, questioning, and research.
A curriculum design implementing all three of these philosophies could be the most accurate and effective way to progress in education as the world progresses around us, creating what could truly be termed a Modern Curriculum.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
I am about to begin teaching the 6 + 1 Writing Traits to my kindergartners. This is my second year teaching the traits, and though I enjoyed it...I'm not yet completely comfortable with it. I love teaching writing and I want to be as successful as possible. So my question is: Are there any primary teachers out there who have taught 6 +1 and have a few good tips to share? I would appreciate it!! Thanks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
