In the Teaching and Learning Office, we’re systems people. We spend considerable time and energy planning for, encouraging, supporting and facilitating efforts to get us all rowing in the same, or similar, direction across the district. Whether it’s through district PLCs for grade-level groups K-5, joint PLCs at the middle level, or the proficiency-based teaching, learning and assessment work we have supported at the high school, it’s ultimately about clarity and consistency in naming what we want students to learn and how we know they have learned it.
As Jocelyn and I, two mid-career, white, female educators, engage in the anti-racism work this year, we continue to have discussions about the tensions that dismantling white supremacy culture creates when it confronts systems. Below we have tried to capture the gist of our conversations in a written dialogue.
NBC: The more I learn about the characteristics of a white supremacy culture, the more I feel compelled to look critically at the systems I attempt to create. Some thoughtful teachers have recently raised concerns about exactly this tension, especially with respect to our efforts to establish a guaranteed curriculum. Specifically, how do we balance being flexible and responsive while also holding ourselves to teaching a guaranteed curriculum? A lot of people I talk to seem to be wrestling with this.
JFS: That makes total sense for folks to be experiencing shifts. Looking critically at our own practices is a huge part of this learning. I know I am thinking differently about how I work with teachers and leaders across the district. When I create something, I’m thinking about whether or not I am perpetuating white supremacy culture. And, even then, when I rationalize that I am not, I have to question, “Am I just rationalizing this because WSC works for my benefit?” Are you experiencing any of that?
NBC: Yup, for sure. Take PLC work. I have been a huge proponent of a clearly articulated guaranteed curriculum. That is, ensuring that teachers come to agreement about the core learning goals and the tools we use to assess those learning goals. I have always thought that this is an important equity lever because it "guarantees" that no matter who the teacher is or which school the student goes to, all students have access to the same core learning.
But I experienced some cognitive dissonance -- and discomfort -- while sitting in on Ita Meno’s session in December. My notes from that day have the following question to myself scrawled in the margin: How do we establish clarity, consistency and best-practice teaching and learning while also simultaneously disrupting white supremacy culture?
And so I want to look extra carefully at this, because any time the "system" is saying we all need to do something, it deserves extra scrutiny.
JFS: I feel like a have a way that it makes sense in my brain. Tell me what you think:
A guaranteed curriculum is about the high leverage knowledge and skills that students need in order to be successful adults in our society. It means that every student has the opportunity to learn a clearly stated core curriculum that we, as teachers, collectively agree to explicitly teach, have students practice, and assess.
When I hear Ita or Joe Truss talking about flexible, responsive curriculum, it’s about voice and choice and providing learning opportunities that are highly engaging and empowering. But it doesn’t mean that individual teachers are making individual choices about what’s essential. At the end of the day, you have to be able to write clearly, for example. It’s an essential skill. We can and should be flexible about how we’re teaching: the pacing, the activities we use to help students make progress toward the learning goals, and especially the culturally responsive materials we use. We can even have students design the learning experience, but at the end of the day, we need to be teaching common skills. They’re “essential”.
NBC: That’s consistent with what I heard Bianca Bellot from Hunt say in a PLC meeting a while back. Teachers agree, as a group, on the priority standards and the learning goals. How you get your students there is up to you. If it’s working, and your students are meeting the goals, great. If it’s not working, then we work together to figure it out.
But, can we back up to what you said about pacing? Isn’t it way more effective for us to be examining how our students are doing on a specific set of learning goals if we’re doing it more or less the same time? For instance, if I teach linear equations in September, and you don’t teach them until November, then we can’t really benefit from each other’s expertise, or hold each other accountable for our student’s success. Right?
JFS: Hmmm. When I say that pacing is flexible I mean that as teachers we don’t have to be lockstep. Not in a same-day-same-activity kind of way. With that said, I have definitely found that when I am teaching the same unit at the same time as my PLC colleagues, it is a much richer experience for me and for my students. My students benefit from my collaboration with other teachers - looking at student learning products together, especially as exit tickets along the way. I was able to use lessons created by some great teachers like Tammie Ledoux-Moody, Erika Lowe, Benjamin Roesch, Dov Stucker, Francesca Dupuis, and Brennan Carney, among others. So, I’m not opposed to common pacing, because I think it makes the learning deeper, the work of PLCs more relevant, and the job of teaching easier!
So, here’s where I end up with this perceived tension between the guaranteed curriculum and student empowerment. It has to be both/and. We need to be responsive and flexible AND we need a clearly articulated, guaranteed curriculum that is largely if not entirely based on transferable skills. We need commonly agreed upon standards-based learning goals, and commonly agreed upon assessment tools, to ensure that we're all holding our students to high standards, and so that we can have the benefit of each other’s expertise as we are teaching
And we need to work together in groups, like cross-district PLCs, to help hold ourselves accountable and challenge what each of us thinks is most important. Joint PLCs, for example, are a a “check and balance” . We are ensuring the “guaranteed curriculum” is based on what’s essential, and not the whim - or implicit bias - of one person, or a single school.
JFS: Most importantly, let’s keep the conversation going. As colleagues, as teachers, and as a district.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.