Chapter_5

= // To Teach: The Journey of a Teacher // =

Chapter 5: Liberating the Curriculum In a day and age of standardized testing, accountbaility, and the CORE curriculum, what does"liberating the curriculum" really mean to you and how can this belief make a difference in your schools?

(O'Donnell): I think “liberating the curriculum” means taking a step back from all the emphasis on standardized tests and allowing teachers to teach the content in the best possible way. We all hear stories of how teachers spend all of their time teaching to the test. This may improve test scores, but what does it do for the understanding of the student. Liberating the curriculum promotes teacher expertise and allows them to use their knowledge to teach the material for students to learn.

(Pfaff, N): Standardized testing is a joke, no offense to anyone. But in an era in which we, as teachers, are expected to meet expectations that no one can meet that are being measured by biased standardized tests I feel many people teach the curriculum like a robot, they don't liberate it. "Liberate the curriculum", in my eyes, mean to take something from what you are given and make it your own. As teachers, we all see lessons with potential failure, but many of use still teach these lesson to our kids. Why? Because if we don't our kids could do poorly on their upcoming standardized test or worse we could be judged by their performances. Liberating the curriculum means to free the curriculum from the garbage it contains. I, personally, feel that teaching kids life lesson is more valuable than anything one will ever find in a text book, yet we are expected to do less of that and more direct teaching from the text. I feel the best way to liberate the curriculum in a school is to use it, but to use other strategies that require kids to be accountable for their own learning, and teaches them problem solving skills. I think this is the only way student will learn on their own and the only way to liberate the curriculum.

(Langenfeld): For me, "liberating the curriculum" means allowing teachers to act and respond as responsible, educated professionals. I fear there is a trend toward more scripted and paced curricular materials in our schools. We must remember that education is never about programs but about people. It is through solid instructional leadership that we can make sense of all of the outside demands placed on us. Teachers must be engaged in professional conversations that identify essential learnings and big understandings. The CORE curriculum helps educators identify the wide range of benchmarks that must be addressed by grade level or class. This assures every student is provided with a basic education. I believe teachers must be empowered to then differentiate their instruction and assessments based on the students in their class. (Marty) Commenting on Langenfeld-I agree with your comments, Ann. I am wondering if in our lifetime there will be a realization that we are trained professionals who got into education for the joy and love of children, but have lost many opportunities to share in the joy of learning as we are so focused on state testing that fun is often lost

(Weires): For teachers to be able to "liberate the curriculum", they must be given the permission and have the confidence to get away from the textbook. In our text from last summer, Henson (2010) cited a study by Marsh and Willis (2003) that found that teachers spend 90% of their time teaching from textbooks. Too often, the book drives the curriculum, instead of the curriculum driving the resources used. There is no perfect textbook. As Ann pointed out, teachers need to be encouraged to "respond as responsible, educated professionals." They need be allowed to use their professional judgment about curricular issues. Yes, some things just have to get covered in a certain grade so that there is continuity and progression between grade levels, but there is also some wiggle room as to how things are taught. In an online teacher discussion group I'm in, and one teacher sadly reported that the faculty in his school (not in Iowa) were told that they were to teach using only the textbooks and accompanying resources. No supplementing or variations allowed. UGH! Over the course of this program, the need to hire great teachers has come up repeatedly. Ayers states, "There is no 'teacher-proof' curriculum that will humanize and energize the classroom of a deadly dull teacher - and there is no sense in trying to find one" (p. 100). Once again, it looks like hiring well is the key - of course this is easier said than done!

(Wendler): I feel that the system has made it hard to "liberate the curriculum" in our schools. We now have deadlines to meet, and pacing guides for the curriculum to make sure that we are staying on track and on time the way the district has prescribed the instruction. With the time crunch being created, it has forces teachers to move away from the "teachable" moments that take place all of the time in a classroom. I have always felt that the best lessons and student learning that has taken place in my classroom was not planned at all, they are learning opportunities that arise from our discussions and take us down an unplanned path because of student interests. For example, we would read a story in the curriculum called, "Best Wishes Ed", about a penguin that gets stuck on an iceberg and needs help from his friends to get him back to land. Every year, this story would lead to discussions and investigations about antarctic animals working together to help each other survive. Despite these learning experiences not being outlined in the teachers manual, I feel that my students learned far more from their learning beyond the curriculum. I think Ayers realizes this, and as teachers we need to find ways to embrace those teachable moments, rather than ignore them and trudge forward because we have deadlines to meet.

(Sebring): As I was reflecting on this chapter, I was thinking about a few of my own students and how teachers need to do a better job of "liberating the material" to help meet the students' needs. I often find myself being too "tied down" and have a difficult time liberating my own self to allow greater teaching to be facilitated within the curriculum. For example, there seems to be quite a few deadlines and assessment measures within the curriculum that I find myself getting too wrapped up into those instead of really seeing/hearing/doing what the students' learning needs are. Ayers brings up an awesome point "if you can separate the learning from the credentialing process of schooling, you will remember moments when the most important thing was to understand some phenomenon or to master some skill" (p. 102). It's easy to stay within the parameters established for us by the various agencies, but then teachers get burned out and we find ourselves turning into teaching robots. How do we liberate the curriculum? We can still maintain the integrity of the curricular material we're teaching, but add our own flavor/spice/personal insight and allow students to do the same thing to enrich the learning. I believe if we can infuse those aspects into the curriculum, it would make a big difference in the learning that takes place within the school.

(Van Heukelom): To me, "liberating the curriculum" means "to differentiate." Although testing and the CORE given us some guidelines and deadlines, they don't tell us exactly HOW to teach. There is not a right or wrong way to get the information across to our students (unless we aren't getting to know our students at all). I believe that we can liberate the curriculum by tailoring it to fit the needs of our students. Our superintendent always says that someone has to go to war for teaching multiplication facts in 4th grade. I agree that this basic skill must be taught, but how we teach it can be the way we liberate the curriculum. Some students will learn by songs, others by inventing their own game to practice their facts, and still others by using flashcards with a high school mentor. I do think that it is difficult to set aside enough time to do some of the projects Ayers discussed in this chapter, but I think it is possible. This year our 3rd and 4th grade teachers arranged their schedules in such a way to have one hour and 20 minutes set aside for projects tied to science and/or social studies. We use the CORE essential skills and concepts as guidelines but how we go about the project is different for all students and classes. I also think Ayers makes an interesting point when he suggests to plan and then check off the objectives/curriculum guidelines you've covered (p. 113). By doing this you can liberate the curriculum first and then the official guidelines won't seem so overwhelming. I've always thought that was probably a "no-no" (that you should start with the official guidelines) but now I think it totally makes sense and encourages more creativity and ownership for the students, which ultimately will be more liberating.

(Pfaff) In my opinion, I feel "liberating the curriculum" means to me is simplifying and getting back to the basics. Getting back to basics means looking at the core of what the students needs to know and what the curriculum is looking to teach. According to Ayers, " Elementary and high school teachers need to visit and revisit the basic curriculum question regularly, and, as before, their best allies in this pursuit are the students themselves." In our school and in our district we have started to dive into the Iowa Core Curriculum even though it has been changing. In my school this year, all students are expected to write and present learning targets to students by using "I can" statements These "I can" statements are used in all subject areas and since students have been exposed to these since the beginning of the year; many of the students are able to verbalize their own statements. I feel using learning targets and "I can" statements helps both the teacher and the students simplify and break down what the lesson will actually be.

(Pfaff) commenting on Van Heukelom: I agree with your statement about tailoring your lessons to fit the needs of your students. I feel that the curriculum for most subjects is laid out for you but you as the teacher needs to make adjustments and modifications for certain students.

(Hawkins) "In every case, the point is to ignite the imagination, an essential force for thinking about any of this, to restore life to thought, and to build the wide range of literacies needed for full engagement with and participation in the modern world" (p.111). This is a great summary. Now with the big push to 21st century skills, it is our job to get students to think for themselves, become problem solvers, and help them become successful citizen in our communities. Teachers need to change with the times, and work on ways to reach the students sitting in their rooms today. My husband is the golf coach at Loras College and was trying to have meetings with his players. He would call them, no answer, email them to find availability, nothing, but as soon as he started text messaging with them, the contact was right away. He had to adjust the ways he communicates with his athletes. Teachers need to look at ways to engage students in their curriculum and plan lessons in ways that makes sense to them. (Marty) To me, "liberating the curriculum" means taking matters into our own hands and teaching students what they are interested in learning more about. It means making professional decisions to make the learning fun and intereesting without lowering expectations or losing perspective of across curriculum possibilities. It means that a theme can lend itself to diverse learning interests and development of problem solving skills. Unfortunately, we are treated more and more like script readers than teachers today who might have original ideas, and valuable contributions. It has become more about how to be like others than how to be innovative and find ways to motivate students to enjoy learning.

(Lowery) To me, the statement means you trust the teachers enough to make the necessary adjustment to the curriculum for the betterment of the students. Also, it means that those who are assisting in designing the curriculum for their building or district, look for spots where teachers can teach the item that is important to them, but not required for all. I attended a Iowa Core workshop and learned that there are spots where the teacher can make a decision of curriculum for their students. I felt freedom, to a point. Also, I think that the statement allows for teachers to feel like professionals and able to use the skills they have obtained in conducting their classroom. Standardized testing does restrict the curriculum to some degree, but it should not dictate every walking moment for all participants in the field of education. Especially when there is a push to create global thinkers and workers of professions not created yet.

(Bischoff) I believe “liberating the curriculum” means the teachers puts their stamp on the teaching. Each teacher has their own style they like to teach. You could take two 5th grade teachers from the same building and they are not going to the same. I believe allowing the teacher to use their i﻿magination and creativity will help motivate a teacher to do a better job. The teacher also has to have the flexibility to adjust their style to help fit the needs of an individual class or students. At the secondary level, there are some teachers who teach the same lesson 6 times a day. Is that lesson always best for each class? I would highly doubt it. A good teacher would adjust the same lesson to fit the needs of each class. Ayers states “it (curriculum) will necessarily change each year, each month, each day possibly.”

(Pfaff, N commenting on Bischoff) I agree 100% about putting your stamp on teaching. It's important to teach your kids the expected material and nobody knows your class(s) better than you. It's important to use your teaching style so that everyone is successful in the class.

(Weires commenting on Bischoff) I like your comment about the teacher with 6 identical lessons in a day. Same thing for a teacher who teaches the same class year after year. How many of us know that teacher who is using the same, stale lesson plan that they wrote 10 years ago?

(Wendler commenting of Pfaff): I agree completely with your comment on curriculum. Even the best curriculum does not meet the needs of every child. Good teachers can take a good curriculum and make it great. Teachers need to tailor the curriculum to meet the needs and interest of the students they are teaching.

Hawkins commenting on Wendler) dan, I like your comment that students tend to learn more when we go past or outside of the curriculum. What are some ways that teachers can add that into their classrooms? It seems like teachers are now so worried about getting behind on their pacing that they have to pass up on some of the "good" stuff.

(Hach commenting on Weires): I like your suggestion of giving teachers the permission and confidence in getting away from the textbook in order to be able to teach beyond the scripted teachers manuals. I agree that the curriculum and concepts are what needs to drive what resources the teacher uses, rather than the textbook driving what the teacher does. I know my principal trusts certain members of our staff to teach the curriculum in a manner that doesn't follow the teacher's manual more than she trusts other teachers. Her fear is if she gives certain teachers permission to not use the curriculum and teach the concepts in their own way they won't cover the necessary concepts and instead get caught up in "cutesy" units and projects.

(Merritt): To me, liberating the curriculum means taking what is supposed to be taught, understanding what is supposed to be learned, and then teaching it in a way that best suits your individual context and students. I think that what the Core curriculum, etc. has given us is what we want our students to know by the time they reach certain levels. What I don't think it does is tells us how we are supposed to teach it. That's where liberating the curriculum comes in. This should mean for us to be free to teach how we see fit for our students. This may mean getting away from the textbook and teaching a different way. This may mean very technologically based. This may mean sticking with the textbook word for word. Each of us is in a different context and have different students and different available resources. Therefore, we each face our own challenges to get the students to learn what they need to. By having our hands free to teach in the manner that best suits us, we are more likely to be successful in meeting the goals set out for us.

(Jones): To me “liberating the curriculum” means that teachers have the freedom to develop curriculum that is engaging, challenging, and relevant to their students. Generally speaking it is not curriculum that is handed down or mandated by federal, state, and/or local agencies and it is not the “teacher-proof” curriculum that Ayers mentions in Chapter 5. Obviously teachers must work within the guidelines established by these agencies but they should also have the flexibility to make the learning meaningful for their students. According to Ayers the fundamental curriculum question is: what knowledge and experiences are most worthwhile. Ayers would argue that the students themselves are best equipped to answer that question or that the students should at least be partners in answering that question with their classroom teachers. I would tend to agree with that argument. Providing students with a voice in what they study gives them a vested interest in their own learning.

(O'Donnell commenting on Jones): I think your statement from Ayers " what knowledge and experiences are most worthwhile" is a great question to ask. I find most of my PD discussions relate back to knowledge and experiences. As a district, I think identifying essential learning would help teachers know what knowledge is worthwhile and use expeiences to help learn them.

(Hach): To me, “liberating the curriculum” means not being tied down to the teacher’s manual 24/7. It means having the ability and permission to teach the content in a way that best meets your students’ needs. I think too often teachers teach the curriculum they’ve been given and told to teach without thinking about or putting in the time to change it, expand upon it, add to it, and/or possibly even remove some content based on your students’ needs. I have had several conversations with my principal about giving teachers the freedom to change/adapt the curriculum to best meet the students’ needs and she says that she believes teachers should be given the freedom to teach the curriculum in a way that best meets their students’ needs, but that she also fears some teachers will stray so far away from the curriculum that they ultimately won’t be teaching the content they are supposed to be teaching. Knowing what’s going on and how teachers are teaching and what they are teaching by getting into the classrooms allows my principal to give teachers the freedom to teach the curriculum content in a way that meets their students’ needs, but she is able to keep tabs on them to make sure they aren’t straying so far away that they are resorting to teaching things that are simply “fun” but have little connection to the curriculum or standards.

(Baldry) To me, "liberating the curriculum" means allowing teachers the freedom to teach the curriculum in a way they are comfortable teaching, in a way the students will be able to learn, and in a reasonable period of time. It means allowing teachers the flexibility to take an extra day or two to teach a concept their students are struggling with. It means allowing teachers the freedom to skip over a concept that formative assessments have shown students already have a strong grasp of. It means encouraging teachers to differentiate to meet the various needs of their many students. It means welcoming teachers who want to try something new or different. It means respecting teachers who need to stick to the book and the pacing guide in order to be comfortable. "Liberating the curriculum" means giving teachers the freedom to do what they need to do in order to teach their students what they need to learn.

(Hughes) Liberating the curriculum is to free yourself from the idea of only delivering teacher directed instruction. It seems the pace of curriculum ties teachers to whole group instruction. There is this idea of student engagement being a huge link to level of learning. During our last walk through reflection teachers felt tied down by the reading curriculum as so much of it is teacher directed. It seemed so many teachers were at a loss on how to create student discussion groups. The pacing and format of the curriculum drives their delivery. I believe the curriculum is a guide and resource for teachers. It does not mean you take every last lesson and check it off once complete. As Ayers states, “Teachers can expose, offer, encourage, and stimulate- they should not dictate (p. 100).” Teachers need to hold themselves accountable to not be sucked into pacing guides and every lesson example outlined in the curriculum.

(Wylder)––Currently the curriculum has been hijacked by legislators and tests that have severe implications for schools. The illustration of closing a hospital because there are too many cancer patients is the same idea as closing schools/firing teacher/etc. because students can't read; these schools need more support and sometimes new teachers. Liberating the curriculum is very challenging at the current time given the expectations that high stakes testing has placed on student achievement. Districts and states have responded by adding requirements for student learning goals which has reduced the amount of autonomy teachers have in the instruction in their own classrooms. Incorporating read-alouds, games, and projects into the curriculum would help free the curriculum to be more appropriate for student learning. It would also mean reducing the significance of high stakes testing.

(Wylder commenting on Hughes)––I agree that teachers should not be tied to the curriculum pacing. What do you do about district expectations that require you to maintain pace? There is a need to use formative assessment, however, keep a quick pace––those are oxymorons. How do you follow both expectations?

 (Griswold) The textbooks of today have changed since I was in school. They contain more vibrant colors, more engaging content, better hands-on activities for the students to connect with. However, a textbook is only a textbook. And even though some textbooks can be accessed on-line, they are still not interactive. This is the biggest obstacle that we face when we focus too much on the district’s prescribed curriculum. They are too heavily textbook focused. Not being naïve, I realize why. We must have some staple to cling to that is the basis for our instruction, but when a teacher is not able to connect the curriculum, or the text to real life, the students don’t draw on their background knowledge. Many of our students need to be active. One of the things that I have seen in my own son is how he is becoming less connected to school. He needs to use his senses in order to learn about things. If he only reads about them, he is disinterested and lacks the full connection. My daughter, on the other hand, will learn things if there is a connection to music and movement. They are both very different, just as all of our students are different. This means that teachers should be given, encouraged, and trained to differentiate the curriculum so that our students are taught the curriculum in the ways that they learn best. I also believe that the basic skills need to be taught. Kids can’t get by without basic reading, writing, and math strategies. But practicing these in real world ways helps to answer the “why” questions.