Everything is intertwined and mutually inclusive, and we teachers must recognize that school is just one way to make our society better. Through helping our students be open to new ideas and inspiring them to become significant contributors.
Our professors had each one of us present and defend our course mastery statement. In several ways. Student readiness. Alignment with both the general and subject area mastery statements. Logical spiraling considerations with other grade levels. Scope in the context of time allotments and instructional configurations.
In school districts, subject area and grade level mastery statements are worthless if there is no process in place for “delivering up.” As difficult as it is to collaboratively create those statements, it is infinitely more challenging to make sure they have an impact.
While each academic discipline is important, graduates will grasp the idea that problem solving is usually associated with a complex and interactive system. Solving problems requires collaborative skills that allows all disciplines to work in concert.
This new way of thinking about teaching and learning has huge implications for curriculum and instructional design. And for how we teachers assess student progress, intelligence and aptitude.
Methods courses in my university turned me into a different person. I was forced to rethink educational purposes. To see possibilities instead of accepting a stagnant status quo.
Creating a new learning infrastructure will mean a dramatic change in the way we think about teachers and teaching, schools and districts.
In education the disconnect between curriculum experts and classroom teachers is only part of the problem. Too often the curriculum experts are authors of textbooks and other instructional materials touted as cutting edge.