The main purpose for having a curriculum is to have guide in which all teachers within a given structure will follow. The state gives certain standards it wants all schools to reach. A school district will adapt those standards to their buildings, and then again many times a school will adapt those standards into a course of study for their teachers to follow.
Unfortunately for teachers many times we are last in line when it comes to developing curriculum. I am aware in most cases the people developing the curriculum have been teachers at some time. But for example someone who taught at a public high school in northern Columbus does not know what it is like to teach in inter-city Cleveland, or out in eastern Brown County (which is mostly farm land). As Childre said in Backwards Design, we need to start with the learners, and the only ones who know them are the teachers who see them everyday.
At my school we are given a pacing guide to follow for our different subjects. As teachers we given the freedom to teach the subjects as we chose. But we still have certain standards that must be covered each month. It seems that the curriculum is a series of checklist that we as teachers need to cover before the "state test". I have been in on curriculum discussion, when it has been decided it skip a section because it "was taught in eighth grade." But would agree with our reading that we should find out about our students first and evaluate their needs before deciding on the curriculum.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hey Scott- as I mentioned in my blog last night I had just gotten an email about a national curriculum and that worries me a bit for the reason that you pointed out in your blog. In theory I don't have a problem with it- it seems reasonable to establish some minimum expectations for our nations students but I worry about how this might be enacted at a local level--walk throughs and pacing guides are already oppressive enough- I can't imagine what this might look like at a national level.
ReplyDelete