Cycle Four: How Should Curriculum Be Created?
I apologize upfront for the, perhaps, arrogant-sounding rant that is about to ensue, but since reading the Shorto article this cycle, I found myself wanting to shout from my front porch, “Leave the teaching to the teachers!”
In the years since I earned my teaching certificate, one that I and all of my professional peers earned after our years of preparation, I have often been left wondering why it is that so many with no training nor background of any kind in education feel as though they have a better understanding of not only what kids should be learning but how it should be taught.
Yes, all members of our society are entitled to have and voice their opinions. Yes, the opinions of all should be considered. Yet, that being said, doesn’t it make good sense to put perhaps a bit more stock in the voices of those who have dedicated their careers to the study of education? Sure, I may call my mother when my children are sick to see if she has any useful advice, but would I take her advice over the recommendations of their pediatrician, unlikely. My mother did a wonderful job (at least I think) raising her family. She is a wealth of knowledge and a great support, but she did not study medicine at length. She has not been a practitioner of medicine or accrued countless hours of professional development on the latest advancements in children’s health. Her opinion has merit, but when it really matters, I want my children’s’ doctor making the medical calls. Some would claim this comparison is an over simplification, but to me it parallels the way the input of teachers in large-scale curriculum and educational policy decisions is frequently treated. We are the experts who have studied, and as is the case with those of us who are in this course, continue to study the art and science of teaching. We are the ones who are practicing in the field every day. Why then is our perspective not valued as much or often as I feel it should be?
My opinion in this matter is why, the Shorto article elicited more of a visceral response from me than the Tyler chapters though they interesting and engaging. It was gut-wrenching to read in the Shorto article how the abuse of power (at least in my opinion) of a few had such an impact on so many young students and teachers in and out of the state where the reforms were imposed. My issue is not with the religious beliefs of some of the Texas board members. I certainly feel they are entitled to their views and have the right to practice their religious beliefs in their homes and places of worship, but the blatant disregard for the knowledge, experience, and let’s not forget time, effort, and dedication, of the teams of educators who planned and developed the curricular standards is maddening to me.
Although the actions of the Texas board members are an extreme example, I think it can safely be said that the same thing is occuring to lesser degrees in states, districts and/or buildings across the country. Those in charge often push through their own agenda without truly taking into account the voices of the teachers who are actually in the trenches. The voices of a few do sometimes overpower the voices of many, and we who choose to make a difference in the classroom, are left drowning in the wake of their decisions.
So when asked how curriculum should be created, I say it should begin with the work of those who are professionals in their field. It should begin with those who will put to use the decisions that are made. It should begin with teachers.
This is how the Common Core Sate Standards for Mathematics and English Language Arts, or CCSS, were developed. These standards were created in partnership with organizations such as the National Education Association (NEA), National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and are the basis for curriculum development in forty-five states (Texas is not one of the forty-five.) which have recently adopted them voluntarily. During their development, teachers were given opportunities to provide direct feedback on the standards. The standards call for a common set of skills and knowledge for each grade level, K-12, to be taught in all the states which elected to use them. The Common Core or CCSS are more demanding than the previous standards of several states and seek to build depth of understanding in students in ways that are relevant to the real world. I also believe that the standards are in keeping with Tyler’s principles of organization, continuity, sequence, and integration in that concepts and strands are repeated in the different grade levels with each grade exploring them more deeply. Additionally, the concepts in one content area are integrated into other subject areas.
In my district, we are currently working to align our curriculum to the Common Core with a focus this year on Mathematics alignment and a focus next year on Language Arts. One of the things I have noted in our work and experiences with the Math Common Core this year is that it is organized, and to my understanding, intended to be taught in a particular order within each grade. This order within each grade also capitalizes on Tyler’s principles of sequencing and continuity. For example, teachers should begin mathematics instruction in the strand of Numbers and Operations in Algebraic Thinking as it is a foundation unit upon which skills in all other units will be based. The strands after that also build upon one another advancing to more complex tasks/skills but always building upon what was expected in the previous strand. As I understand it, students are also expected to achieve grade-appropriate mastery of the skills in each strand before moving to the next. This is a large departure from the spiraling curriculum format of the Everyday Mathematics Program which was our main curriculum resource prior to our work with the Core this year, and I much prefer it. While I always enjoyed the alternate methods for problem solving promoted through EDM, I was always bothered by the spiraling structure as often times new, more complex concepts were introduced before mastery of the foundational skills of those newer concepts were mastered. A wonderful resource for lessons to teach the Common Core Mathematics Standards is located at these links: K-5 Units and 6-8 Units. Unpacking the Standards is a great resource to help make sense of the language of some of the standards and provides easy to understand examples and illustrations of Core concepts.
In my eyes, after teacher input, the next important consideration to curriculum development is alignment between objectives and goals, instruction and instructional materials, and assessment. These three items make up the three points on the curriculum triangle which, I believe, is a wonderful model for teachers and curriculum coordinators to use when creating curriculum. The curriculum triangle also connects to Tyler’s ideas about curriculum design and the need to consider assessment in curriculum development. Using the triangle recognizes that all three areas play a very important role in curriculum. It also underscores how important it is that each area is considered when planning for the others. For example, when selecting instructional methods, teachers should consider how well they align with the goals and objectives in a given subject as well as how well they will prepare students for connected assessments. In relation, when designing an assessment, one must be sure it is assessing the important objectives and is in line with what was presented during instruction. Finally, when a teacher examines his key objectives he will need to consider how they will be assessed and the best methods for instructional delivery. If you are interested in learning more about the curriculum triangle you can visit the links below:
