"The increased deskilling of teachers and the dissemination of teacher-proof curricula.." Anderson, p.28
My district purchased a scripted curriculum for use in Pre-k and k classes a few ears ago. Now this might go against the very purpose of this class but I just feel the need to defend its usefulness. I stress that I defend its usefulness, and not its godliness.
It had two major things going for it:
1. It forced teachers stuck in their ruts to climb out
2. It was an enormous support to first year teachers
These are major issues, as most of our teachers came from these two groups - those too long in the district and those just out of school desperate for a job.
This scripted curriculum forced them to cover state expectations and utilize developmentally appropriate practices. The use of this curriculum without increased the experiences of our disabled populations. Just because they don't look at the book or engage in conversation about it doesn't mean you shouldn't read to them!
So how does this relate to the readings you ask. Well it relates directly to the quote above. This and all curriculum need to be a base from which teachers - experts if you will - can start. It is not the bible, and teachers need to be able to use their valid knowledge from day to day classroom experiences to create progress for their students. We do not need curriculum company consultants coming into our classroom and devaluing our adaptations. We need to support these teachers to participate in action research on the smallest of scales and value that if we are to hope they participate in it on a larger scale.
Why does it always seem to have to be one way or the other?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You make a good point about keeping "seasoned" teachers fresh by shaking up the curriculum and by providing some sanity to those first year teachers who only came back because there was a large blue binder bible marked CURRICULUM in the closet!
Post a Comment