Standardized School Curriculum

95% of teachers in my school district voted to strike because every day they have to follow prepared lesson plans word-for-word or risk getting black marks on their records that could lead to job loss.

They claim it turns them into robots and the curriculum prepared for them appeals to the lowest common denominator and is often mediocre at best. They also say having to be constantly monitored i case they stray gives the school an unhealthy Big Brother Is Always Watching You Environment.

And I agree completely...

However, as one who has gotten teachers who were only a couple of steps away from being in a vegetative state, I can see why such a curriculum might be the one thing that makes sure all students are able to complete school having learned the same things.

I'm curious what people who don't live in my district think.

writerGrrl:

They claim it turns them into robots and the curriculum prepared for them appeals to the lowest common denominator and is often mediocre at best.

Well that's basically what no child left behind does. In theory that was good, but it doesn't work. The teacher has to teach at the level of the stupidest/slowest kids in class, so those that are brighter have to dumb themselves down to that standard.
The same kind of thing is happening where I live. The school board/government is trying to make all the teachers teach an 'approved' curriculum. All the classes that I'm in are weighted honors classes, yet they want to slow us down to the learning rate of those in regular classes.
Obviously those kids who aren't so bright should still be given a quality education, and if having the teachers teach through springboards and strictly regimented lesson plans works then that's great, for them.
I'm in a college bound honors magnet program, my class is reading Fuller, and Thoroue, and Emmerson, and they want to us to go all the way back to 'what is a noun?', 'what is a verb'. It's ridiculous.

I think that teachers should have to stick to a curriculum, otherwise, you can get schools that go way off, and the children can't pass any public exams, but I don't think that it should be set word for word. I think they should have bands. So the brighter kids can learn different stuff to the less bright kids. At my school, the years are split into 9 forms, and 5 tiers, with the brighter kids seperate from the less academic ones. The lowest group has access to vocational courses, so that they can get qualifications, and later on, a job. All schools should follow a curriculum guideline, so that they all teach the same sort of thing (ie, history in every school is either 20th Century Russia, and America, or 20th Century Germany and Britain) so if you say you have a History GCSE, then people know what that means. Schools shouldn't have to stick to overly strict curriculums, because sometimes teaching methods don't work on all kids. (I know I can't learn from just taking notes, but other kids can't learn from just listening)

Eponine:

Well that's basically what no child left behind does. In theory that was good, but it doesn't work. The teacher has to teach at the level of the stupidest/slowest kids in class, so those that are brighter have to dumb themselves down to that standard.
.

Agreed. I think the arugment for it was, "if the child is smart, they will learn anyway even if there curriculum is dumbed down"
No way. Kids don't learn if you don;t teach them. Plain and simple.

Eponine:

I'm in a college bound honors magnet program, my class is reading Fuller, and Thoroue, and Emmerson, and they want to us to go all the way back to 'what is a noun?', 'what is a verb'. It's ridiculous.

The IB program at my school was nearly dismantled because of our [insert expletive here] superintendent who thought it was too exclusive. However luckily teachers got angry and threatened to resign so he only knocked off a few classes. He also got rid of the honors program in Middle School and High School. Now how much of an honors class you're in depends on how smart the kids are. If the average kid is smart the class is ahead of the curve, everyone gets challenged, and it's fun. If the class is behind the curve, you have to wait for everyone else to catch up. (Usually there's mean kids in that sort of class too.) With curriculum web though, you're always at the level of the stupid class no matter what, the smart kids are bored and the stupid kids aren't pushed (not to mention bored too because standardized curricula are boring.)

The superintendent resigned as soon as he found out he had gotten the district in piles of debt with little results. Now he's working for the textbook company who's textbooks he marketed to the school in his old job.

Yes;Indeed;True:

Agreed. I think the arugment for it was, "if the child is smart, they will learn anyway even if there curriculum is dumbed down"
No way. Kids don't learn if you don;t teach them. Plain and simple.

When I'm bored at school, I just read books under the table, or write MCR fanfic.

writerGrrl:

The IB program at my school was nearly dismantled because of our [insert expletive here] superintendent who thought it was too exclusive. However luckily teachers got angry and threatened to resign so he only knocked off a few classes. He also got rid of the honors program in Middle School and High School. Now how much of an honors class you're in depends on how smart the kids are. If the average kid is smart the class is ahead of the curve, everyone gets challenged, and it's fun. If the class is behind the curve, you have to wait for everyone else to catch up. (Usually there's mean kids in that sort of class too.) With curriculum web though, you're always at the level of the stupid class no matter what, the smart kids are bored and the stupid kids aren't pushed (not to mention bored too because standardized curricula are boring.)

Thankfully that won't ever happen at my school, next year we become humanities and art magnets only.
It can be elitist, because a lot of times smarter students get special treatment, and then you put all the smartest kids together, and that whole group gets special treatment, but it's like, no offense to the other kids, but we are smarter than them. It's been proven scientifically that some people are smarter than others, so it's not like it's some kind of discrimination. Although to be fair to them, if you aren't smart (especially in public school systems) you often do get left behind, because a lot of teachers just don't care. There's a fine line between providing smarter, brighter kids with higher level classes, and not giving anything to those who aren't smarter. It's kind of a hit and miss, with trying to find a balance.

I also agree with the no teaching = no learning. I didn't learn a damn thing in chemistry because I had no teacher. What was I supposed to do, play around with dangerous chemicals by myself?

There should definately be some sort of standarised cirriculum that all teachers should follow to give everyone the same education on at least a basic level, so all students can leave with all the knowledge they need to a certain level.

But there is a point where teachers should be able to deviate from that. What you described at the start I where they have to follow the plan word for word, I think they are right for striking against that. You can't teach everyone in the same way, it doesn't work. And although it will be fine for some students, there would be a lot more that get left behind. And thn those that are capable of much more will never be able to reach their full potential.

Because although yes, you can go learn for yourselves, it takes other people and mainly teachers I would say, to instill the need to do that in you, and also give you the knowledge on how to go about getting that and analysing it and such.

We have a national curriculum in the UK that teachers have to cover. However, the way in which we cover that it entirely up to us. To give out lesson plans for teachers to follow word for word is not only wrong, it's down right ignorant.

Have these people never heard of different learning styles? What is right for a visual learner might not be for a kinesthetic learner. Also individuvals have teaching styles. I teach my Drama lessons in a very different way to the Science staff, thats not just a deviation between content, its the whole style and ethos of our teaching. I would hate to be restricted in the way i was able teach my subject because of goverment rulings.

I don't know about other places, but in the UK, they are desperately trying to increase numbers of teachers, advertising and offering "golden handshakes" to encourage teachers. What an irony... if this is the future of teaching in some places then there is nothing more that would stop me from continuing in a profession that I not only love but am extremely passionate about.

Eponine:

Thankfully that won't ever happen at my school, next year we become humanities and art magnets only.
It can be elitist, because a lot of times smarter students get special treatment, and then you put all the smartest kids together, and that whole group gets special treatment, but it's like, no offense to the other kids, but we are smarter than them. It's been proven scientifically that some people are smarter than others, so it's not like it's some kind of discrimination. Although to be fair to them, if you aren't smart (especially in public school systems) you often do get left behind, because a lot of teachers just don't care. There's a fine line between providing smarter, brighter kids with higher level classes, and not giving anything to those who aren't smarter. It's kind of a hit and miss, with trying to find a balance.

I also agree with the no teaching = no learning. I didn't learn a damn thing in chemistry because I had no teacher. What was I supposed to do, play around with dangerous chemicals by myself?

I completely agree with the 'discrimination' factor. Thankfully, the way the kids in my senior class have leveled out, all of the extrememly above average students have close to the same schedule, so we all get the better treatment and higher expectations that we need to maintain interest.
It's just sad that we are able to have the same schedule - there's no variation in courses we are allowed to take. Some of the only differences are "Oh well darn i'm taking College bio and you're taking college chem...too bad, now we only have seven classes together."
But we all know each others strengths and weaknesses, and the AP teachers know US really well since we see them so often throughout the day. I just remember in the first years of highschool...the concern the counselor would express if we were taking what she deemed "too heavy of a schedule."
Expectations just need to be higher, for everyone. that's the only way you can get better.

In NZ there is a national curriculum, but it's made up of subjects and achievement standards and unit standards for those subjects. As long as the teachers teach us what's in the standard that we have to sit at the end of the topic they can teach it to us any way they like.

The problem is that EVERYONE has to do EXACTLY the same standards and they have no choice to do anything closer to their level or style of learning. I can understand that this is frustrating for both teachers and students. Our system is run by 'credits'. You get enough credits from enough standards and you pass the year. Most standards have between 2-6 credits, but bigger topics and projects can go up to 12. But even though our school is supposedly 'streamlined' for higher and lower level classes, they all do the same work, and they all do the same standards. Certain standards have to be held at certain times of year, so the classes are all forced to do it at the same pace.

The teachers know that they're not teaching a chunk of the students anything new, and they also know that they won't be able to get another chunk of students up to the required level. Which is probably why we have so many people failing or dropping out, and then another chunk of really successful students and barely ANYTHING in the middle.

I think it's up to the student to set their expectations if it isn't going well. I know I would've liked the choice. And teachers understand better than anyone what the students need to learn. If they're dictated to word for word what they are going to teach it's only harming the quality of learning and the environment in general.

The teachers are still striking. They first changed it so teachers could make up their own curricula but they had to play a game of 'mother may I' first with the district. Now they can and are encouraged to post their lessons for other n00b teachers to follow. However the teachers are still pissed about that the idea was even brought up in the first place.

The main issue now is pay.