EXCELLENCE (EXCELLENCE)
Upon finishing my first arduous year at Clarksdale High School, and with summer school at Holly Springs High School fast approaching, I had to quickly transition and begin to give much consideration to how I envisaged planning the algebra 1 curriculum. Luckily, I felt that my training at Holly Springs last summer, coupled with all of the accumulated experience at Clarksdale, had given me a significant advantage in terms of planning curriculum compared to if I had to do so for the first time. My planning that summer encompassed two broad principles: pacing and content focus.
With regards to pacing the curriculum, I divided all of the standards mandated by the state of Mississippi evenly amongst about 10% shy of the total number of days allotted for summer school. In other words, I used 90% of the summer school days to teach content and about 10% for reviewing and giving extra focus on those content areas which are notorious for giving students difficulty. I personally don’t like pacing guides which tend to allot significantly more time to one unit compared to another – seeing as, in theory at least, all course content is of importance. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be included in the curriculum in the first place. So when given the authority to do so, I do my best to place equal emphasis and pacing on all units. Now, understandably, some units cover much more content than others, and these need to have slightly more time allotted to them. But if possible, I still tend to give each objective within the unit an equal emphasis instead of spending an inordinate amount of time on one objective to the detriment of many others.
In terms of content focus, my philosophy that summer was to adhere strictly to the standards set out by the state. Some teachers take liberty with the curriculum – whether it adheres to Common Core, Mississippi Framework, or whatever curriculum has been mandated by the administration of a school – and stretch the objectives to mean something which deviates from the explicitly delineated curriculum. I feel that this is slightly more acceptable in a social studies or even English class since the students’ answers can be so fluid, and can therefore be interpreted in a way in accordance with the teacher’s subjective evaluation of whether the response meets the expounded unit objectives. However, in a math or science setting, one and only one answer is acceptable. If x is to equal 3, then x being found to equal 3.5 will never be able to receive full credit. Therefore, due to the more objective nature of math and science when it comes to the range of acceptable and non-acceptable answers, I believed (and continue to do so) that a stricter adherence to course curriculum standards is required. If the students are to be able to evaluate polynomial functions by the end of class, the only thing to be taught that class will be polynomial functions and the course will revolve around solving many examples of them. There really is no gray area in as objective a course as math for deviating the lesson from polynomial functions if this is what is being mandated by the curriculum. If, in contrast, the objective for the day is that the students will be able to write a five-paragraph essay, the options are seemingly endless in terms of what the students will be able to submit as an acceptable finished product. Of course, all the essays will be composed of the same five major components, but the increased fluidity and subjectivity of a course such as English means that an essay on sharks and an equally well written essay on Abraham Lincoln could receive the exact same score despite enormous variability in subject focus. This is not to suggest by any stretch that teaching English or social studies is easier than teaching math or science, since each course entails its set of challenges and advantages. However, I’m of the opinion that it’s in the more objective subjects such as math and science that a strict adherence to the curriculum guide is favorable. For the reasons enumerated above, and with the preceding rationale as its underlying philosophical basis, I felt justified that summer in opting to follow the curriculum guide very closely with minimal room for deviations from what must absolutely be taught.
I’ve grown greatly as a math teacher since I first began my teaching journey over two years ago. I feel that using my acquired knowledge to craft a steadily advancing and content-focused curriculum for my geometry (and even French classes) has been of great benefit to my students. That being said, I still humbly admit that I have much to learn in terms of getting other people, whether they be students or not, to understand both the importance of the lesson and the objectives associated with the lesson. I therefore relish the opportunity to further hone my skills over the years to come to become the best math, French, or just plain old teacher I possibly can be.
With regards to pacing the curriculum, I divided all of the standards mandated by the state of Mississippi evenly amongst about 10% shy of the total number of days allotted for summer school. In other words, I used 90% of the summer school days to teach content and about 10% for reviewing and giving extra focus on those content areas which are notorious for giving students difficulty. I personally don’t like pacing guides which tend to allot significantly more time to one unit compared to another – seeing as, in theory at least, all course content is of importance. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be included in the curriculum in the first place. So when given the authority to do so, I do my best to place equal emphasis and pacing on all units. Now, understandably, some units cover much more content than others, and these need to have slightly more time allotted to them. But if possible, I still tend to give each objective within the unit an equal emphasis instead of spending an inordinate amount of time on one objective to the detriment of many others.
In terms of content focus, my philosophy that summer was to adhere strictly to the standards set out by the state. Some teachers take liberty with the curriculum – whether it adheres to Common Core, Mississippi Framework, or whatever curriculum has been mandated by the administration of a school – and stretch the objectives to mean something which deviates from the explicitly delineated curriculum. I feel that this is slightly more acceptable in a social studies or even English class since the students’ answers can be so fluid, and can therefore be interpreted in a way in accordance with the teacher’s subjective evaluation of whether the response meets the expounded unit objectives. However, in a math or science setting, one and only one answer is acceptable. If x is to equal 3, then x being found to equal 3.5 will never be able to receive full credit. Therefore, due to the more objective nature of math and science when it comes to the range of acceptable and non-acceptable answers, I believed (and continue to do so) that a stricter adherence to course curriculum standards is required. If the students are to be able to evaluate polynomial functions by the end of class, the only thing to be taught that class will be polynomial functions and the course will revolve around solving many examples of them. There really is no gray area in as objective a course as math for deviating the lesson from polynomial functions if this is what is being mandated by the curriculum. If, in contrast, the objective for the day is that the students will be able to write a five-paragraph essay, the options are seemingly endless in terms of what the students will be able to submit as an acceptable finished product. Of course, all the essays will be composed of the same five major components, but the increased fluidity and subjectivity of a course such as English means that an essay on sharks and an equally well written essay on Abraham Lincoln could receive the exact same score despite enormous variability in subject focus. This is not to suggest by any stretch that teaching English or social studies is easier than teaching math or science, since each course entails its set of challenges and advantages. However, I’m of the opinion that it’s in the more objective subjects such as math and science that a strict adherence to the curriculum guide is favorable. For the reasons enumerated above, and with the preceding rationale as its underlying philosophical basis, I felt justified that summer in opting to follow the curriculum guide very closely with minimal room for deviations from what must absolutely be taught.
I’ve grown greatly as a math teacher since I first began my teaching journey over two years ago. I feel that using my acquired knowledge to craft a steadily advancing and content-focused curriculum for my geometry (and even French classes) has been of great benefit to my students. That being said, I still humbly admit that I have much to learn in terms of getting other people, whether they be students or not, to understand both the importance of the lesson and the objectives associated with the lesson. I therefore relish the opportunity to further hone my skills over the years to come to become the best math, French, or just plain old teacher I possibly can be.
On a related note, I've learned that it's true what they say: "half the battle is just showing up." This is particularly true for teachers in Mississippi. In an area where absenteeism and truancy are so ingrained in so many aspects of life, setting an example of consistently showing up for work and regularly performing one's duties in a professional manner is of paramount importance.