Great article, shows the variety of opinions even among our own teaching staff. And hopefully, this means their English curriculum is basically decided; it’s good curriculum can be flexible and change, but it has been subject to too much flux, without reason. I do think reading real literature is especially valuable, and textbooks alone are insufficient. The mixed curriculum described above – pushing hard to get up to grade level and supplementing with the correct grade’s work – seems, in my relatively uneducated opinion, logical.
Its refreshing to hear that the California Board of Education has finally come to their senses and realized that literature and practicing literary analysis is the most important part of any English class in that it teaches one of the most valuable skills one could hope to learn in high school: critical thinking. On the other hand, textbooks just do not come close to teaching critical thinking adequately.
While I am of the opinion that we should be held to at least a basic set of standards, I agree with the anonymous poster that learning a language from a textbook is not as valuable as firsthand experience. Furthermore, with respect to intervention English, I think that, again, students can be held to standards, but that their timeframe doesn’t necessary have to be the standard 4 years. My undestanding of intervention English is that it tends to deal with students who are below grade level because they have not been exposed to the language. Much like the average student takes a relatively relaxed 6-7 years in middle/high school to become fully acclimated with a foreign language, Intervention Enlgish students should not be rushed to fit an agenda, rather they should understand the language, because the end goal is not a high-school diploma, but communicative skills that they will use in the job market and elsewhere for the rest of their lives.
I agree, both with you and with Anonymous. I’m glad that teachers once again have the opportunity to plan their classes in a way that they think will be both enjoyable and beneficial for their students. However, this rapid changing between English curriculums has been hectic and borders on the ridiculous. While the District is required to abide by state standards, administrators, superintendents, what have you, should have been more careful about their decisions about which programs to introduce and implement. Bannan’s comment that it’s been frustrating sounds like an understatement. I feel sorry for the students who now have to rapidly cobble together 10 units from last semester, especially since they’re not to blame for missing them in the first place.
Great article, shows the variety of opinions even among our own teaching staff. And hopefully, this means their English curriculum is basically decided; it’s good curriculum can be flexible and change, but it has been subject to too much flux, without reason. I do think reading real literature is especially valuable, and textbooks alone are insufficient. The mixed curriculum described above – pushing hard to get up to grade level and supplementing with the correct grade’s work – seems, in my relatively uneducated opinion, logical.
Reply
Great to have such in-depth reporting on such a key topic – thank you!
Reply
Its refreshing to hear that the California Board of Education has finally come to their senses and realized that literature and practicing literary analysis is the most important part of any English class in that it teaches one of the most valuable skills one could hope to learn in high school: critical thinking. On the other hand, textbooks just do not come close to teaching critical thinking adequately.
Reply
While I am of the opinion that we should be held to at least a basic set of standards, I agree with the anonymous poster that learning a language from a textbook is not as valuable as firsthand experience. Furthermore, with respect to intervention English, I think that, again, students can be held to standards, but that their timeframe doesn’t necessary have to be the standard 4 years. My undestanding of intervention English is that it tends to deal with students who are below grade level because they have not been exposed to the language. Much like the average student takes a relatively relaxed 6-7 years in middle/high school to become fully acclimated with a foreign language, Intervention Enlgish students should not be rushed to fit an agenda, rather they should understand the language, because the end goal is not a high-school diploma, but communicative skills that they will use in the job market and elsewhere for the rest of their lives.
Reply
mdrace Reply:
February 23rd, 2012 at 11:57 pm
I agree, both with you and with Anonymous. I’m glad that teachers once again have the opportunity to plan their classes in a way that they think will be both enjoyable and beneficial for their students. However, this rapid changing between English curriculums has been hectic and borders on the ridiculous. While the District is required to abide by state standards, administrators, superintendents, what have you, should have been more careful about their decisions about which programs to introduce and implement. Bannan’s comment that it’s been frustrating sounds like an understatement. I feel sorry for the students who now have to rapidly cobble together 10 units from last semester, especially since they’re not to blame for missing them in the first place.
Reply
great article and amazing in-design work!!
Reply
About time they made a change, it’s frustrating to think of teachers as being restrained by a textbook. Great reporting!
Reply
great job on the article!
Reply
yea very interesting and informative
Reply