The purpose of curriculum is to guide teachers in what they teach. Also, as stated in the Schwartz article, it is "to represent those things that children must do and experience in order to adequately perform as adults." As teachers, our role is to follow the curriculum and make sure to cover everything we are supposed to. Like it was stated in the articles, this is a very difficult task to do.
I personally feel that I do not have any control in designing the curriculum. I do have control over how I carry it out in my classroom, though. I think that teachers should have more control. I think it would be not only be practical, but it just makes sense. I love the statement in the Schwartz article about how curriculum writing should be shifted toward engaging and educating not only the students but the teachers as well.
In my classroom, I work very closely with another 2nd grade teacher. We collaborate and plan many subjects together. For math, we often give a pre-test for huge concepts such as telling time, two digit addition, two digit subtraction, etc. We then divided our kids up accordingly and one of us will take the more advanced group and the other will take the one that needs more support. Several times throughout the day, we mix our kids or get together for things. It works so well! Not only do my students benefit from her teaching style and vice versa, but it gives us the opportunity to better teach our students. She is a veteran teacher and I'm newer and that allows us to come up with some really neat ideas!
So I take it you are a collaborative teacher in a second grade classroom. This really peaks my interest because my daughter, Alli, is in a 2nd grade collaborative classroom. It’s ironic that you bring up math since the big debate right now is whether or not to group for math in order for more advanced students to move quicker and lower students can move at their own pace. Actually 2nd grade has been grouping for math but they are facing opposition from the administration. In our school there are 7 classrooms of 2nd graders and are grouped for math according to a placement test they took at beginning of the year. . Do you have any thoughts about grouping?
ReplyDeleteGreat discussion starting here- I agree with Stephanie that how you enact curriculum is up to the teacher and I love that you are using a collaborative model. This is a great way to have input and be supported. I think that you and your partner are using the data to drive your instructional planning and hence enacting the curriculum. But let's talk about grouping. Dana asked what you think about grouping? It sounds like your classroom (Stephanie) has more of a flexible grouping model with groups decided at the beginning of each unit based on a pre-test. But it sounds like Dana's daughter has more of a static grouping arrangement. What about others out there- what do you see? Why do you think certain instructional decisions on grouping are made? Is this the best way to cover curriculum?
ReplyDeleteSounds like the two of you are very successful with the co-teaching marriage. We implemented it this year, and we currently have varied successes. I think it's awesome that you mix it up with your students and allow them to teach and learn from each other. We have a static grouping for math and it's great for the more advanced students. However, the struggling students realize that they are all grouped together and don't respond as well.
ReplyDeleteDr. Clarke you are correct when you said that we follow a flexible grouping model. We don't always group, just when introducing a huge concept. I personally prefer the flexible grouping over the static simply because the groups are interchangeable based on student need. Another thing that I like about the way we do it is that if a student catches on quickly then we simply move them to the other group and vice versa. Dana, does your daughter's school allow them to change groups or do they have to stay in the same class the whole year based on their placement test?
ReplyDelete