School leaders might have the right to steer the conversation on what lessons should look like in their schools, but do they have the right to dictate it?
I'd honestly be a bit less charitable than you. I see a lot of this type of stuff along the lines of "write your objective on the board and have students read it aloud at the start of class," or "you have to give an exit ticket," but no one cares what a teacher actually does with that exit ticket. Worse is the non-negotiable of a scope and sequence following an external curriculum to the day.
I have a theory that education is prone to this issue because learning is mostly invisible. It's very hard to peer inside a student's mind and determine whether they've learned, and easy to rely on some external proxies for learning. So if you imagine some generic leader in some generic school without substantive training, they will always tend toward proxies for learning rather than learning just because learning is invisible.
One of the reasons I left a school was for the need to follow a formulaic plan when teaching mathematics. I saw the value but also felt that some concepts needed different approaches or sequences. I figured that the ultimate goal was to ensure students had demonstrated knowledge and skills to at matched a learning intention and success criteria. And I was determined to get them there Every. Single. Lesson.
When I didn’t follow the prescribed formula, I felt like I was doing something wrong. That is a crummy feeling.
I understand it was done because there were multiple teachers in each year level with varying levels of expertise in teaching maths. But the identical requirements is a bit like the classroom teacher always teaching to the middle. Help others with math and let me go. Can you please help me with science?
Have you read that satire book “non-negotiables” by Fake Headteacher? Highlights the good intent, but hollow-ness of all things connected to this phrase.
I'd honestly be a bit less charitable than you. I see a lot of this type of stuff along the lines of "write your objective on the board and have students read it aloud at the start of class," or "you have to give an exit ticket," but no one cares what a teacher actually does with that exit ticket. Worse is the non-negotiable of a scope and sequence following an external curriculum to the day.
I have a theory that education is prone to this issue because learning is mostly invisible. It's very hard to peer inside a student's mind and determine whether they've learned, and easy to rely on some external proxies for learning. So if you imagine some generic leader in some generic school without substantive training, they will always tend toward proxies for learning rather than learning just because learning is invisible.
fair! maybe i was being too nice ;)
Ah, your post flooded me with memories.
One of the reasons I left a school was for the need to follow a formulaic plan when teaching mathematics. I saw the value but also felt that some concepts needed different approaches or sequences. I figured that the ultimate goal was to ensure students had demonstrated knowledge and skills to at matched a learning intention and success criteria. And I was determined to get them there Every. Single. Lesson.
When I didn’t follow the prescribed formula, I felt like I was doing something wrong. That is a crummy feeling.
I understand it was done because there were multiple teachers in each year level with varying levels of expertise in teaching maths. But the identical requirements is a bit like the classroom teacher always teaching to the middle. Help others with math and let me go. Can you please help me with science?
Have you read that satire book “non-negotiables” by Fake Headteacher? Highlights the good intent, but hollow-ness of all things connected to this phrase.
No! Sounds great