Chapter_5

=//To Teach: The Journey of a Teacher//=

Chapter 5: Liberating the Curriculum

In a day and age of standardized testing, accountability, and the CORE curriculum, what does "liberating the curriculum" really mean to you and how can this belief make a difference in your schools?

====Liberating the curriculum means opening it up to new ideas about education. To begin creating these new ideas Ayers directs us to ask one simple question… “What knowledge and experiences are most worthwhile?” (Pg. 102). By reading chapter five, I learned that there isn’t an easy answer to this question, however there is a great place to start. To open up a curriculum and liberate it an administrator needs to first follow Todd Whitaker’s advise, “it’s people, not programs,” that make the biggest differences. Ayers agrees with this on page 100 when he describes his experiences and explains that there isn’t a “’teacher-proof’ curriculum that will humanize and energize a classroom of a deadly dull teacher.” Ayers’s comment proves to us that the right teachers are important if you want to create new ideas and make valuable educational changes. The right people involved in your program enhance the district’s curriculum because they will always be asking the right questions. For example, they will ask questions like the one Ayers provides on page 103, “How do I create a condition for children to have full access to those valuable experiences and that worthwhile knowledge?” Questions like these promote new ideas within a curriculum. When the teacher ponders questions and brings up ideas about the materials, resources, and the environment, they eventually challenge the current curriculum and lead to its liberation. In addition, in this day and age, the proper teachers will be accountable. The good teachers I work with are always helping each other (and me) better their performance and hold one another highly accountable for what they do, as well as for their attendance. When their are teachers like this, who want to improve I believe standardized testing and the CORE are addressed and the outcomes are usually positive.==== ====But how can this belief make a difference in my school? I truly believe that if I have teachers who are constantly asking questions to improve what they do, they will encourage students to do they same. These types of teachers will encourage students to seek an understanding and further expand it for the purpose of making a better future for themselves and the community in which they live. In other words, the right teachers will encourage their students no to be satisfied with the “status quo,” but instead challenge and improve it. Furthermore, I believe if I have the right teachers (and act like a “right” teacher) our students and school will have attained the point Ayers has for a curriculum which is, “to develop a curriculum that engaged kids, challenged them, encouraged them, activated them, and invited them to think seriously and deeply over a sustained period of time. We wanted a curriculum that opened all children to the possibility of a life lived with courage, hope, and love, or as John Holt (1990) out it, to ‘a life worth doing’” (pg. 99).- Josh Saba====

Josh: Well stated. I think what I like the most about your reflection is that it is realistic. It is the "people, and not the programs"; administrators must be great teachers themselves; and finally, when you have teachers that want to improve, the other stuff just happens! Sounds to me like your definition of 'liberating the curriculum' really just means having great relationship skills with internal stakeholders? Sounds pretty easy; right? (Dr G)

The guiding question to consider in Chapter 5 of Ayers was “In a day and age of standardized testing, accountability, and the CORE curriculum, what does "liberating the curriculum" really mean to you and how can this belief make a difference in your schools?” I think for many, both those in the education field and out of it, when they think of curriculum they think of the “material” taught in schools from textbooks and other sources. However, I believe that the definition of curriculum entails much more and Ayers would agree when he says that “Curriculum can be considered everything that goes on in a school….beyond as well as within the school walls.” (Ayers, 101) So much of we are teaching our students in schools will be carried into other endeavors in their lives. As a result, the “curriculum” needs to be geared towards those who will benefit the most from it, the students. We, as educators, need to constantly reevaluate our material and be sure that it is linked to the interests of our students (Ayers, 105). When a student is interested and connected to the material, retention is much greater than when a student blocks out the information being presented. Now do not get me wrong, I know that no matter how “exciting” we make the material presented to students there are always going to be those who are not interested. That is just something that we are going to have to accept and we need to know that our hard work will pay off for those who want to learn. There is a plethora of information and resources available to educators and those who actively seek to implement these supplemental resources into their classrooms can tap into a whole new reserve of knowledge and information for students which, if I’m not mistaken is who we are here to benefit.

I truly believe that I as an educator am growing everyday along with my students and that they day that I think I know everything there is to know about education is the day I need to find another career. I am not an expert on curriculum or education, nor do I claim to be, but I make every attempt to address both in the best approach I can. I think that a school that has the similar philosophy can create an environment where learning is conducive and where teachers and students can grow together. As Ayers points out “There is no “teacher-proof” curriculum that will humanize and energize the classroom of a deadly dull teacher—and there is no sense trying to find one.” (p.100) If teachers believe that they will simply enter the education field and let the materials provided with the curriculum guide them and still be successful, they are in for a rough initiation to education. It is so much more than that and the teacher that truly “liberates the curriculum” will be a far more effective teacher and may even have some fun while doing it. (joe d)

Joe- Nice to see you highlight the common definition of curriculum, as well as the 'hidden curriculum' that goes so much further in the education of a child. As we all know, the issue often lies in whose interpretation of what's important holds the most credibility?! (Dr G)

According to Ayers, “a curriculum is an ongoing engagement with the problem of determining what knowledge and experiences are the most worthwhile.” A couple of decades ago the curriculum was filled with dull, non-cultural experiences, and boring. Ayers compared this curriculum to McDonald’s, this type of curriculum gets the job done in the short term, but doesn’t have any substance for the long term.

Today with standardized tests and the increasing accountability of the students and teachers, the curriculum is changing. The Iowa Core has put great emphasis on rigor and relevance of the curriculum. It’s encouraging that we moving in the right direction making experiences meaningful and deepening thought processes. We are encouraging thought processes and critical thinking as apposed to abstract thoughts.

Liberating the curriculum means flexibility, Ayers poses questions he struggled with when he was trying to liberate the curriculum. Within each of these questions lays an underlining meaning or a piece of the framework that goes into a great curriculum. The curriculum he proposed seems to be consistent with the Iowa Core. The curriculum he proposed deals with: inquiry, engagement, student lead experiences, community involvement, and collaboration. I believe the Iowa Core has great potential; it depends on the implementation of the curriculum, for example, how well teachers adapt. Teachers will have to change more than just materials, it’s a paradigm change. This will strengthen student thought processes and students will have a feeling of empowerment, because it’s based on their interests. (Josh J)

Ayers Chapter #5

Ayers gives us many ideas on how to “Liberate the Curriculum”, from the teachers who spend their summers thinking and planning “a sustained study” for her classroom about a topic she knows nothing about (p.106) to asking the students for ideas about HOW they should be learning the given curriculum (p.114).

All his ideas sound great and wonderful, but again, as I read it I kept thinking to myself, how did he manage to do all these things? With all the budget cuts in schools, parents are asked to give/donate money so their students can go on field trips. Teachers create wish lists for parent to donate items to the classroom because the teachers did not receive their classroom budget money this year. Everywhere you turn the schools are constantly asking for more money or donations. What Ayers talks about costs money: field trips, the materials needed to build his spaceship, etc. Not to mention the time it takes to implement the “Liberated Curriculum”. Am I being cynical or just practical? I don’t know.

Now on to the question. What does “Liberating the curriculum,” mean to me? My take from this chapter is for educators to be free with the curriculum and push the envelope. Find out what the interests of the students are and take on those big challenging projects and run with them. Explore the world around us and create meaningful learning experiences from it.

If all our schools had the time and resources to teach our students in this liberating manner, it would be an exceptional learning experience for the students and the teachers. We would certainly have engaged students in our classrooms because of the interest level it would create. Teachers would be able to implement similar ideas into the curriculum on a smaller scale and I think some do. But the practical/cynical side of me still says that we have a curriculum to teach and standardized tests to administer. (Jeni Roadcap)

Jeni: Based on your 3rd paragraph, I was going to ask you "but what about....". However, looks like your final paragraph got back down to the realistic aspect that prompted by question for this chapter. But, I do think that you can 'push the envelope' and still get at the curriculum that is a bit more mandated! (Dr G)

=
Liberating the Curriculum - While the Iowa Core does specify abilities students should acquire throughout their Social Studies education, the curriculum does not explicitly state the content and sequence of study. The Core’s identification of Social Studies skills greatly opens the opportunity for ‘liberating the curriculum.’ Even should those detailed expectations be added to the Iowa Core with the National Social Studies Standards, teachers can still ‘infuse everything with energy and drive.’ The form of instruction can enliven students to the richness of any topic. The teacher, even in a lock-step system, can implement rigor and relevance through alternative assessments. By highlighting the truly worthwhile values of educational objectives, teachers can make their subject a ‘living challenge’ rather than a ‘better package.’ And while the majority of this sounds very teacher-driven, Ayers rightly acknowledges that students need to be involved in the ownership of learning for the curriculum to be ‘liberated.’ As Stiggins outlined in the Assessment for Learning DVD, teachers need to begin by presenting the final goals toward which students are working. But then students can help plan the process by which they reach those final goals. At first glance it does as seem as though the Iowa curriculum is becoming less ‘liberated.’ But strong teachers thrive by making the learning process come alive for their students. (Rick) ===== As the only arts teacher in the cohort I have a very different view of curriculum. I'm in my 6th year of teaching and have written two different sets of standards and benchmarks during that time. I have also spent two years teaching at the middle school level with no standards or benchmarks. While it is true that there are 9 National Music Standards, they are very vague and allow a lot of room for variety. I know that at any given time I can rewrite the current standards to fit what I feel should be taught. I work hard to infuse cross-curricular activities into my classes at all grade levels. I want my students to make the connections between music, history, math, science, and reading.

One thing I strive to do now as a more veteran teacher is to give the students input into the general music classroom. As a young teacher I felt very uncomfortable giving up any control of my classroom, but now I want students to create actions for songs, choose the music for the concerts, and compose their own pieces of music. I want them to take ownership in class and have pride in what they are learning. The more I learn about the Iowa Core and what is expected in the classroom; the more I want to make music class a time for exploration and creativity. Ayers talks about this on p. 100 when he states, “Teachers can expose, offer, encourage, and stimulate – they should not dictate." As I gain more experience as a teacher I continue to seek out more opportunities to change my classroom from dictation to exploration. (Kerri)

﻿Two ideas of "liberating curriculum" come to mind. The first is dreaming big and understanding where Ayers is coming from in his book. Life without standardized test accountability and state standards fits into this mold. The second is working within the reality of state standards and accountability through testing. I will write about both in the next two paragraphs.

Ayers makes a nice point on p. 100 when he says "The curriculum is considered to be 'things,' and thee things amount to the stuff that some people have and other people need. Knowledge, thought, judgement, and wisdom are assumed to be the specific property of some expert, policy maker, or scholar who has predetermined and prepackaged it all for easy consumption." He goes on a few pages later to suggested that the teachers' role is to create conditions "for children to have full acces to those valuable experiences and that worthwhile knowledge" (103). The idea I take from this argument is that different students and students in different geographical areas have unique learning needs when it comes to "curriculum." I appreciated the stories he shared about teachers using thematic learning experiences embedded throughout the year (whales come to mind) to develop a collective sense of inquiry among students. It is liberating to realize that no one, not even the teacher, has all of the answers! As I read further in the chapter, I saw Ayers tighten up his belt a bit, particularly when he discussed students learning to read and K-6 math/reading basic skills. This leads directly to the second idea...
 * Dreaming big **

Ayers seems to agree that teaching students to read at an early age is important, whether it's whole language or phonics-based. I see that is a dose of the standards/accountability movement, i.e. "we all agree that students should learn X." Outside of this very narrow curriculum (literacy), Ayers seems to be prescribing a very de-centralized focus. Iowa City High School students could be learning Y while Iowa City West student are learning Z. A few miles down the road, Lone Tree HS students are learning A. This is contrary to the reality known as state standards and accountability. How might our current reality be liberated? One idea is to have fewer state standards so teachers can be more flexible rather than feeling constrained to a content/process checklist created by somebody at the state for federal level. A part of me wonders who would create this list...would it still be some sort of expert or policy maker? Why does Ayers feel literacy is the only content/process that should be prescribed? In a way, is he making a judgement call, too? It's difficult to argue that literacy is not important, but what about scientific inquiry? What about algebraic reasoning? I believe this is where our current reality (standards-based accountability) comes into play. Lots of folks have taken it upon themselves to answer these questions. It is up to local districts to do the best with the cards we're dealt. (Matt T.)
 * Reality: accountability **

Matt: And I think one of the largest issues you brought up is in your second paragraph when you state, "...who would create this list..?" I think we all have a pretty good understanding that those questions are often the lynch pin in many discussions about key systemic change. And unfortunately (maybe), those questions are a bit rhetorical! (Dr G)

“Many teachers resort to the “drill and kill” method of teaching math. My first year of teaching I know that I did this. I did what I was told and I wanted to do what the other teachers did so that I could learn. I was uncomfortable with this whole process. I can remember doing so many timed tests, desk work and hardly any hand on interactive activities. My second year of teaching we got a math coach who changed my world! I began doing hands on activities and teaching my students in different ways! I only wish I could go back to my first year of teaching and redo my teaching method! But I did try my best! This year I am continuing to do center based math activities and enjoy the process!(Katie Owens)

I believe in a lot of what Ayers says on the bottom of page 102 and top of 103 about getting students involved in the creating of what I would call a "whole curriculum." Whether it be the written curriculum or the hidden curriculum are the students engaged, asking questions, challenging their own learning, and is it connected to real-world tasks and issues. When I came to West Marshall there was no curriculum for my 7th and 8th grade history classes. They had simply let the prior teacher do as she wished for many years and the curriculum maps were greatly outdated. Obviously I needed to write something but where was I to find that information? Iowa Core would have been nice back then. I think to have a "liberated curriculum" you need to ask the questions I have here. Don't simply march the students through the educational process but get them involved. Challenge them to own some leadership skills and ask questions about what it is they are learning. I think it is great that there is some goals and a guide to what "someone" thinks important to learn but there are also so many opportunities for teachers to go beyond but also let students guide them beyond the written curriculum. (Aaron B)

I think the concept of liberating the curriculum would be lost by teachers teaching core classes in the state of Iowa. Not that they still don’t have some control of what they teach and to the degree in which concepts are presented. To me liberating the curriculum means to free it from current restrictions. It is evident to me that we are living in a time where accountability is weighing heavier on the minds of the public and state personnel as oppose to focusing on the liberation of curriculum. Ayers demonstrates the concept of liberating the curriculum in the first few pages of chapter 5 as he explains the Caucasian male spin on everything taught in education. He brought books and ideas into his classroom that weren’t typical of what one might see in that particular setting. The questions raised from adding resources to the classroom are did it increase student interest, student learning, or better prepare them for the road ahead? This is difficult to measure, unless students are being tracked. Other items that are often overlooked in determining curriculum are facilities, technological resources, tools, equipment, and educator training. In the career technical areas of agriculture, business, family and consumer sciences, and industrial technology you do not see the same standards and accountability pieces being enforced. Some may argue that this is the case because these are not core classes. I would argue that the state cannot create a homogenous curriculum due to facilities, technological resources, tools, equipment, and varied level of professional aptitude. You will not find two of the same programs in the entire state. Sometimes the liberating of the curriculum occurs in these settings out of necessity. When budgets get tight, this has a direct impact on equipment repair, consumables, and raw material. A budget freeze may mean I change everything that was planned in order to ensure an atmosphere of learning. (Joe B.)

Joe: Interesting perspective about the impact of resources on the possible liberation of a curriculum. Probably not what Ayers' had in mind, but coming from a CTE background such as yours, I certainly know exactly what you mean. Money does impact the curriculum; whether it should or not! (Dr G)

Liberating the curriculum has a somewhat different meaning today than it did when Ayers initially wrote this book. I really think he was trying to get people to question what exactly are we teaching to students, and if we are destroying the process with the adherence to curricular checklists or vague aims and goals. It is clear that Ayers believes that this type of education, in which teachers "dictate", instead of "exposing" and "encouraging", is killing learning and student motivation (p. 100). I think the basis of Ayers' argument is still relevant, but takes on a different meaning in today's world of high-stakes testing and core curriculum. We know that, for the moment, these are factors that are going to influence what and how we teach our students. To me, liberating the curriculum means to find ways within the required framework to still do the things that Ayers sees as so essential. Things like opportunities for student discovery, active engagement, productivity, cultural awareness, and a sense of student involvement in the curricular process (p.104-105). These are all traits of good teaching, regardless of what types of tests or curricular framework we are following. (Travis)

Good points Travis. So maybe putting a name on great teaching (such as liberating the curriculum), isn't really necessary for those great teachers that always find a way to teach what is supposed to be taught, and do so in a framework that engages students!? (Dr G)

//Ayers gave many great examples, in chapter five, of how to liberate curriculum, but teachers now must also be focused on the CORE curriculum, how to improve test scores, and also the issue of continued budget cuts. Taking all of these things into consideration, “liberating the curriculum,” to me, means taking the Iowa CORE expectations and incorporating engaging activities that involve students solving real-world problems. As I was reading this chapter, I was reminded of the Rigor and Relevance professional development my district participated in a couple of years ago and the thematic units our school developed as a result. On another note, I was also reminded of a conversation I had with my superintendent just a few days prior. She said that often, we are too focused on what we are going to teach as opposed to how we are going to teach it. She was making a point that perhaps it is better to purchase various reading and math programs, to take a bulk of the planning off of teachers, thus allowing them to spend more time planning meaningful supplemental activities. This is the approach that we’ve taken with the Literacy Project class and we’ve had great results. (Whitney Bowen)//

// Nice reflection; and very relevant! (Dr G) //

// For me, Ayers gets at what "liberating the curriculum" means when he talks about the teacher having a responsibility to create a dynamic and flexible classroom where students think about their own thinking and make choices about their learning. I believe that this can be done even with standardized testing, accountability and the CORE curriculum. Although the CORE requires teachers to teach certain essential skills and concepts they can still do so in a way that engages students and includes them. Teachers can teach in a way that fosters metacognition on the part of the students. Instruction can still be guided by students' questions and mandates don't have to change that. Later in the chapter Ayers goes on to discuss how skills aren't abandon but instead are being used and expanded upon (p. 111). I tend to agree, we don't have to teach the skills in isolation to still teach them. If we "liberate the curriculum" in a purposeful way those essential skills and concepts will be addressed. (Erin Burmeister //

I agree with the statements Ayers made in chapter 5 about liberating the curriculum by offering worthwhile knowledge and experiences to the students. Although his examples may seem a bit overwhelming I can see that allowing the students to have a say in their own learning fosters a sense of ownership and interest in the content. When the necessary amount of planning is put into creating the "core study" it becomes obvious that many of the standards are embedded in these units. It brings to mind the recent interest the students have had in the Decorah eagles. We spent some time creating a KWL chart about eagles, researched the many questions, and later shared the information with the third grade class. This was not something I had originally planned to do, but the opportunity and interest was there. The students were engrossed in the activity and had a great time learning. (Katie F.)

Katie: Great example of "liberating the curriculum". And as you say, when effective planning takes place, the core areas that are necessary should be embedded in everything we do. (Dr G)

Ayers (p.101) states, “Curriculum can be considered everything that goes on in a school, for example, not simply the material collected and delivered or the better package of goods, but all the unintended as well as planned consequences, all the hidden as well as overt messages, all the experienced as well as stated aspects of school life.” I think liberating the curriculum means thinking outside of textbooks and not having to stick exactly to the lesson plan. I think it means taking those unexpected moments that happen and running with them instead of saying that is a great idea we can discuss later-we need to get back to what we were doing. I realize there are current things that need to be done and taught, but liberate and go with the flow sometimes! Sometimes the unplanned and unexpected moments are the ones that students remember most! (Amy)

Love your last sentence. Something we should always be looking for when observing teachers! Thanks Amy. (Dr G)

In a day and age of standardized testing, accountability, and the CORE curriculum, what does "liberating the curriculum" really mean to you and how can this belief make a difference in your schools?

“With each person and with each situation, that problem takes on a different shading”(pg 98). Liberating the curriculum could mean something to different to each and every person. To me it means breaking through the barrier of tradition and incorporating new ideas, methods and using differentiation. Meeting the needs of your students could be completely different than those in the same grade level and different classroom. Kids should be challenged, engaged and invited to think deeply. A variety of techniques and applications should be used. The curriculum should not control the teacher but the teacher should have the confidence to make the curriculum fit her and the students.(Katie O)

The paragraph on page 101 says it all, but the last sentence really summed it up for me. “Or curriculum can ban conceived in terms of an old and elegant question: What knowledge and experiences are of most value?” Right now we are so focused on the CORE and standardized testing that it feels, at times, that I am just teaching so they will do well on a test. Kids need and want experiences that they can see being valuable in their current lives. My kids ask me ALL of the time, “When will I use this in life?” I can tell them they will use it when they have to pay a mortgage payment and taxes, but they do not care about that. They want to know now. I have a girl in class who is nuts about basketball. Everything she does is basketball. We were talking about angles in math and she hated it. I would always hear how this stuff is stupid and she will never use it. I tried to convince her that she would use it in basketball, but it wasn’t until she showed up one day with her head down. When I asked her what was wrong she told me that her coach told her last night that she needed to take a 45 degree angle to the basket. I just gave her a big smile because I knew that now angles were relevant to her. There are things we “have” to teach, but just like the previous example I gave, you have to make it valuable to each student. Connect it to their life. I am still teaching material that will be on standardized test, but in a relevant way to students. If teachers feel this same way there would be less pressure to “teach to the test.” Just realizing that you still can teach the material, yet make it relevant will make learning more meaningful for students. When learning is more meaningful for students, they are more engaged. When students are more engaged, they learn more. (Derek Philips)

Derek: Makes perfect sense, and I can't imagine anyone ever challenging that statement. I honestly believe that as administrators and evaluators, we need to remind teachers about this connection that is so vital to student learning. You will always run into teachers that see it as the student's responsibility to connect the material; but it should be the teachers. The challenge, of course, is when that connection has to be done for 25 students at one time - and all with different experiences and backgrounds. (Dr G)