On the same page

RedKudu’s fellow English teachers have decided to coordinate their teaching so all students learn the same curriculum. RedKudu seems the potential to “streamline a student’s progress through our English program.”

I pointed out that if we knew that everyone on the junior level is teaching similar, or even the same, lessons from The Great Gatsby on symbolism, and that all students had to show proficiency on an exam or carefully evaluated assignment which was the same across the classes…think of how we could teach to mastery by evaluating which questions the students could or couldn’t complete, then revise our lessons to address their deficiencies.

I hope she’ll report on how teachers implement the idea.

Teachers don’t know how to improve a deficient curriculum, writes D-Ed Reckoning.

About Joanne


  1. Prof210 says:

    Plus, think of how new teachers could be made to feel part of a team rather than isolated with only occasional intercom interruptions providing evidence of what other adults are doing nearby.

    But if I could offer two words — “common assessments” (pre-tests and post tests). Students can learn only what is taught, and what is tested is likely to drive instruction. Common curriculum without common assessments is almost certainly a delusion.

  2. Shades of Don Hirsch (though he’s not yet a shade himself)! This is an excellent argument for consensus on curricula.

    And, Prof210 has an important notion, too. However, I’d say it only goes about half as far was needed. Here’s a variation:
    (a) If something is worth teaching, it’s worth testing to ascertain whether we’ve taught it.
    (b) If something is worth testing to make sure that students know it or how to do it, it’s worth teaching explicitly.