Date: Oct 11, 2012 8:44 AM
Author: Robert Hansen
Subject: Re: "Curriculum" is NOT the same as "system" - some differences
I posted the above in reference to the thread I STARTED dealing with curriculums. You asked me to explain what I meant by "systematic" and I did so. If you will note, I have never attacked the way any teacher plies their craft. It is the substance of what they are teaching that I find fault in. Just for example (not assigned to you), if you think kids learn better in groups than individually, fine, show me. When you show me kids in groups doing nothing more than letting the other kid answer the problems then I think you have fibbed or you do not understand the task you have been assigned. Teaching mathematics is actually training, not teaching. History is taught, mathematics is coached. If you think kids will be more engaged if you hire clowns to entertain them then fine, show me. But don't show me where the average was previously 50% and now it is 55%, that is BS, you are just playing the system (the way tests and curriculums work). Show me last year there were only 3 kids with 90% and this year there are 7 kids with 90%. I want more kids to be successful but if the essence of what you are teaching (not how) is wrong and lacks development then you have failed already.
On Oct 11, 2012, at 7:26 AM, GS Chandy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> He had posted the above in the vastly mistaken belief that it represented a "system".