How times change! When I was teaching in D65, teachers wrote the curriculum based on standards written by teachers. A telling moment in the email to 5th grade teachers revealed a date for teachers to initiate a certain unit. This puts distant publishers and administration in charge dictating day -by-day classroom learning. The teacher and students are no longer the center. It was an exciting and demanding part of my job to develop curriculum. D65’s current practice is suffocating.
Of course, there should be open access to all materials used
I retired after last year and the biggest change I saw over the last few years is that teachers have to teach to the calendar, not to what the students need. There is no freedom to adapt if the students are struggling, teachers are afraid to spend an extra class period on a concept lest they "fall behind" in the curriculum. The running joke in 65 has been, "sure we differentiate, it's just that everyone has to do it the same way." I believe that the ever-increasing lack of trust in teachers is what is driving so many to leave the District or leave the profession entirely. Teaching in D65 has become regurgitation of whatever JEH decides that the curriculum of the day is going to be.
This is right on brand. The district keeps spending massive amounts of money on curriculum changes, and we end up with subpar curriculum. They did it with math (2x), they did it with science, and this year with literacy. I've heard good things about Wit & Wisdom at the primary grades, but I'm ecstatic I don't have to teach this in the intermediate grades after leaving the district last year. There's no independent reading, virtually no writing, and no differentiation.
Springing this change on the 5th grade teachers last minute also tracks. Why was no one looking at this last year when they made the change? And why in the world do the higher-ups at JEH think teachers don't prepare for new modules? Finding out 2 school days before beginning the unit and teachers find out it's a different unit is not simply a "pivot." The disrespect is palpable.
The people at the upper levels making these decisions were no where on the chopping block 3 weeks ago. Instead, we're losing student-facing and teacher-supporting staff. I hope the information you continue to provide will actually make a difference next BoE election. Otherwise, d65 will continue to lose students and the teachers who go above and beyond to do the best for their students.
Thanks, Tom. Frustratingly, this seems par for the course. How are we not seeking out curriculum, from the outset, created with the lens that reflects something as obvious as the Black experience during the Civil War??! Seriously —this feels completely bizarre & outrageous —malpractice-y. This is not ok. And I’ll say it —People have been disciplined & fired for less.
Truth be told, I’d love to see a story/expose that shines a light on the subpar D65 curriculum choices made by those in charge —including money spent, the constant changes & last minute switcheroos (including how that impacts teachers’ ability to teach and students’ abilities to digest the material), the lack of engagement of our incredible teachers….also how do we choose curriculum? Is some of it created “in house” and if yes, by whom? How are these people chosen and deemed qualified?
This seems like a significant problem. It deserves a big ole spotlight, if you ask me.
Wit & Wisdom is highly recommended by a lot of curriculum experts because it aligns with Science of Reading and it is content rich. I have a lot of acquaintances in the dyslexia community who are big advocates of it. It is generally a great choice and districts should probably supplement it as appropriate with other on topic high quality material.
There is a New Yorker piece on Wit & Wisdom and how Moms of Liberty tried to run it out of a district. It has been a target of theirs for awhile for being too progressive. I can see why the company may be on guard with comments.
Tom - thank you for posting this information. I am concerned about the apparent unilateral efforts to ban content and material (especially since open access is not available) from "authority figures" especially ones that purport to be "civil servants". Did the higher ups solicit input from all relevant stakeholders before making this *last minute* disruptive decision to the educational environment? Wouldn't it be useful to let teachers *and* students critically examine this content from an equity lens instead of banning the material which fits their equity agenda but presents no apparent benefit to the teachers or students? I believe active learning would be beneficial in our political climate as opposed to passive transfer of information. We need an informed and active citizenry not simply absorbing information from authority figures who appear to lack critical thinking (insofar as fiscal responsibility and management are concerned). Aren't teaching conditions learning conditions? How does this last minute decision impact teaching *and* learning conditions? The BOE needs to consider impact assessments of these poor decisions, in regards to changing curriculum and last minute curricular changes. These poor decisions add up and affect the quality of education in the short *and* long term. I continue to be utterly appalled and flabbergasted by the behavior of D65 administrators and BOE.
This is a good and valid point that the very discussion we're having here is the kind of discussion they should be having in the classroom. I think the teachers call that "modeling"
I don't doubt that a unit about the "War Between the States" has to address slavery, and in that context it's about Black people. If I was going to try to teach fifth graders about slavery (and nobody would hire me to do that), I'd spend time on what slavery is, slavery in history and modern times, kinds of slavery. One objective would be to help them recognize if someone is trying to enslave them.
Your comments are perfect examples of examining the banned content from an equity lens. If teachers and students were given leeway to do this instead of taking orders from administrators, I think it would have been a much better learning experience for everyone involved including the publisher of the content who would have received feedback from ALL relevant stakeholders. Just my humble opinion. Thanks for posting.
That's exactly what is wrong in D65. Good teaching requires qualified teachers who know their students and curriculum. Teaching is an organic endeavor, teaching from the ground up, not receiving a dictated, mandated curriculum from above. As I've stated before-school boards need to hire and fire superintendents, oversee the budget and set general policy. School boards should never be involved in daily lessons. Teachers do that. Where is DEC?? Fighting for teachers to do their jobs by following best practices is taking action for better learning for students.
I have no problem with an "equity lens" (other than the fact that it is a meaningless platitude).
However, I am wondering if the District has a "writing lens"? Or a "mathematics lens"?
My kid is in fifth grade and I don't know whether his teacher is just phoning it in, but my sense is that they make few demands on the kids in terms of accountability. I never see any commentary on his work. They seem to have only the most minimal homework and the teacher conferences are a joke in terms of getting a sense of how our student is progressing.
The only thing he seems to have learned is how to search mindless videos on YouTube.
It is a completely meaningless platitude but as long as people continue to use the phrase, I'm going to call them out for not actually using an equity lens. If you care so much about this equity lens:
1. Why did it take 18 months for someone to ask "hey where is the new school in the fifth ward"
2. How come no-one looked at the curriculum here until a week before?
I'm starting to think we might need new lenses because these are defective.
The problem with all this `equity lens` nonsense is that the D65 functionaries (to use their term) "center" this ideological theater over building skills that actually can help students be prepared for being on a pre-college track in high school.
Whatever content agenda they have in the curriculum, if the students can't adequately read, write, and do mathematics, they are really going to be poorly served in the long run.
How much time do they spend ensuring writing/math proficiency? Until you "center" that, all the other stuff is irrelevant.
Hardly surprising. Kind of funny, though. Boy, I would hate to be a 5th grade teacher having to deal with this. Who wants to bet the public won’t get an apology for wasting time and money from the well-compensated Director of Curriculum, who is ultimately responsible for this?
How times change! When I was teaching in D65, teachers wrote the curriculum based on standards written by teachers. A telling moment in the email to 5th grade teachers revealed a date for teachers to initiate a certain unit. This puts distant publishers and administration in charge dictating day -by-day classroom learning. The teacher and students are no longer the center. It was an exciting and demanding part of my job to develop curriculum. D65’s current practice is suffocating.
Of course, there should be open access to all materials used
I retired after last year and the biggest change I saw over the last few years is that teachers have to teach to the calendar, not to what the students need. There is no freedom to adapt if the students are struggling, teachers are afraid to spend an extra class period on a concept lest they "fall behind" in the curriculum. The running joke in 65 has been, "sure we differentiate, it's just that everyone has to do it the same way." I believe that the ever-increasing lack of trust in teachers is what is driving so many to leave the District or leave the profession entirely. Teaching in D65 has become regurgitation of whatever JEH decides that the curriculum of the day is going to be.
This is right on brand. The district keeps spending massive amounts of money on curriculum changes, and we end up with subpar curriculum. They did it with math (2x), they did it with science, and this year with literacy. I've heard good things about Wit & Wisdom at the primary grades, but I'm ecstatic I don't have to teach this in the intermediate grades after leaving the district last year. There's no independent reading, virtually no writing, and no differentiation.
Springing this change on the 5th grade teachers last minute also tracks. Why was no one looking at this last year when they made the change? And why in the world do the higher-ups at JEH think teachers don't prepare for new modules? Finding out 2 school days before beginning the unit and teachers find out it's a different unit is not simply a "pivot." The disrespect is palpable.
The people at the upper levels making these decisions were no where on the chopping block 3 weeks ago. Instead, we're losing student-facing and teacher-supporting staff. I hope the information you continue to provide will actually make a difference next BoE election. Otherwise, d65 will continue to lose students and the teachers who go above and beyond to do the best for their students.
Thanks, Tom. Frustratingly, this seems par for the course. How are we not seeking out curriculum, from the outset, created with the lens that reflects something as obvious as the Black experience during the Civil War??! Seriously —this feels completely bizarre & outrageous —malpractice-y. This is not ok. And I’ll say it —People have been disciplined & fired for less.
Truth be told, I’d love to see a story/expose that shines a light on the subpar D65 curriculum choices made by those in charge —including money spent, the constant changes & last minute switcheroos (including how that impacts teachers’ ability to teach and students’ abilities to digest the material), the lack of engagement of our incredible teachers….also how do we choose curriculum? Is some of it created “in house” and if yes, by whom? How are these people chosen and deemed qualified?
This seems like a significant problem. It deserves a big ole spotlight, if you ask me.
Wit & Wisdom is highly recommended by a lot of curriculum experts because it aligns with Science of Reading and it is content rich. I have a lot of acquaintances in the dyslexia community who are big advocates of it. It is generally a great choice and districts should probably supplement it as appropriate with other on topic high quality material.
There is a New Yorker piece on Wit & Wisdom and how Moms of Liberty tried to run it out of a district. It has been a target of theirs for awhile for being too progressive. I can see why the company may be on guard with comments.
"Is there any story more important to the human experience than liberation and escape from the shackles of slavery?"
Well, maybe the one about how we became enslaved.
Got any suggestions for reading?
Tom - thank you for posting this information. I am concerned about the apparent unilateral efforts to ban content and material (especially since open access is not available) from "authority figures" especially ones that purport to be "civil servants". Did the higher ups solicit input from all relevant stakeholders before making this *last minute* disruptive decision to the educational environment? Wouldn't it be useful to let teachers *and* students critically examine this content from an equity lens instead of banning the material which fits their equity agenda but presents no apparent benefit to the teachers or students? I believe active learning would be beneficial in our political climate as opposed to passive transfer of information. We need an informed and active citizenry not simply absorbing information from authority figures who appear to lack critical thinking (insofar as fiscal responsibility and management are concerned). Aren't teaching conditions learning conditions? How does this last minute decision impact teaching *and* learning conditions? The BOE needs to consider impact assessments of these poor decisions, in regards to changing curriculum and last minute curricular changes. These poor decisions add up and affect the quality of education in the short *and* long term. I continue to be utterly appalled and flabbergasted by the behavior of D65 administrators and BOE.
-VERY concerned citizen
This is a good and valid point that the very discussion we're having here is the kind of discussion they should be having in the classroom. I think the teachers call that "modeling"
Certainly nothing at a fifth grade level.
I don't doubt that a unit about the "War Between the States" has to address slavery, and in that context it's about Black people. If I was going to try to teach fifth graders about slavery (and nobody would hire me to do that), I'd spend time on what slavery is, slavery in history and modern times, kinds of slavery. One objective would be to help them recognize if someone is trying to enslave them.
Your comments are perfect examples of examining the banned content from an equity lens. If teachers and students were given leeway to do this instead of taking orders from administrators, I think it would have been a much better learning experience for everyone involved including the publisher of the content who would have received feedback from ALL relevant stakeholders. Just my humble opinion. Thanks for posting.
That's exactly what is wrong in D65. Good teaching requires qualified teachers who know their students and curriculum. Teaching is an organic endeavor, teaching from the ground up, not receiving a dictated, mandated curriculum from above. As I've stated before-school boards need to hire and fire superintendents, oversee the budget and set general policy. School boards should never be involved in daily lessons. Teachers do that. Where is DEC?? Fighting for teachers to do their jobs by following best practices is taking action for better learning for students.
Retired 65 has it correct.
I have no problem with an "equity lens" (other than the fact that it is a meaningless platitude).
However, I am wondering if the District has a "writing lens"? Or a "mathematics lens"?
My kid is in fifth grade and I don't know whether his teacher is just phoning it in, but my sense is that they make few demands on the kids in terms of accountability. I never see any commentary on his work. They seem to have only the most minimal homework and the teacher conferences are a joke in terms of getting a sense of how our student is progressing.
The only thing he seems to have learned is how to search mindless videos on YouTube.
It is a completely meaningless platitude but as long as people continue to use the phrase, I'm going to call them out for not actually using an equity lens. If you care so much about this equity lens:
1. Why did it take 18 months for someone to ask "hey where is the new school in the fifth ward"
2. How come no-one looked at the curriculum here until a week before?
I'm starting to think we might need new lenses because these are defective.
The problem with all this `equity lens` nonsense is that the D65 functionaries (to use their term) "center" this ideological theater over building skills that actually can help students be prepared for being on a pre-college track in high school.
Whatever content agenda they have in the curriculum, if the students can't adequately read, write, and do mathematics, they are really going to be poorly served in the long run.
How much time do they spend ensuring writing/math proficiency? Until you "center" that, all the other stuff is irrelevant.
Hardly surprising. Kind of funny, though. Boy, I would hate to be a 5th grade teacher having to deal with this. Who wants to bet the public won’t get an apology for wasting time and money from the well-compensated Director of Curriculum, who is ultimately responsible for this?
And definitely no apology for wasting time to the teachers