One of the many problems feedback groups identified with the curriculum is inconsistency. For example, different terminology is used to refer to the same concept in different grades. It makes it harder to scope & sequence. 1/7
Or, a learning outcome from one grade matches better with a similar learning outcome in a different grade and subject area. Teachers integrate subject matter for more in-depth learning (and it maximizes time!) For example, a science topic might fit in with Social Studies. 2/7
The fact that we have members on the curriculum advisory panel who are apparently just *now* reading other parts of the curriculum that were not their particular interest provides some insight into how these inconsistencies occurred. 3/7
Because the people ‘advising’ are not teachers (or not for decades) and are not curriculum experts, no one caught all of this. Or they just didn’t care. But the people who would have to help our children learn all this see it right away. That’s how teachers think. 4/7
*Some* of the inconsistencies could be ‘fixed’. The language could be made more consistent. The learning outcomes could be swapped from one grade to another. The government is getting a lot of extremely detailed feedback on this. 5/7
Here, for example, is the 174 page feedback document that HUNDREDS of teachers and consultants from Edmonton Catholic Schools worked together to produce. It explains the multiple problems clearly and in detail. 6/7
sbecsdstor.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/…
sbecsdstor.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/…
However, much of the new curriculum (notably, but not only, Social Studies) is just too problematic on too many levels. It must be redone. Yet members of the curriculum advisory panel who have been singing its praises are just *now* getting around to actually reading it? 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
