I don’t want to step on any toes here, but I probably will, unfortunately. One thing I’m noticing in the discussion of Alberta’s new curriculum is the number of people insisting (sometimes rather aggressively) that there is ONE way that a certain subject must be taught, 1/13

to the exclusion of all other methods, because experts say so. I acknowledge that there are experts who know a LOT more about various education topics than I do, but classroom teaching is expertise too. And I think that insistence on one and only one method is going to be 2/13

a disservice to some portion of the students in every class. Some of the education experts have spent a lot of time studying and researching, but virtually no time in a real classroom where years of experience bring all sorts of varying ability levels across your path. 3/13

I spent a many teaching years working with students who were coded ‘gifted & talented’ (Not sure they still code kids this way?) For some of these high ability students, sitting in a classroom where they already know what to do and being forced to comply with a method for 4/13

learning something in a certain way can lead to resentment, behaviour problems, disinterest in school, lack of motivation, etc. They *need* the challenge and the ability to go beyond what is being taught as much as other students need extra help, reading interventions, etc. 5/13

It’s not okay to assume they’ll be fine just because they already caught on to what is happening and ignore their needs. Across the spectrum, kids need different types of support with different skills. Some kids are able with math but stalled because of their reading
6/13

comprehension when it comes to problem solving. Some kids need to use manipulatives to understand math concepts and some just get it. Some need a lot of phonics instruction to be able to read, but some don’t. Some kids have auditory processing issues or are hard of hearing 7/13

Some kids have a hard time putting thoughts into writing. And so many other unique needs. It IS important to give kids the basic building blocks, like phonics, knowing math facts, etc. But it is limiting and exclusionary to insist that there is no other method that will work 8/13

or should even be attempted. I taught elementary at the start of my career. I taught phonics. The elementary classrooms where I have subbed teach phonics and word families—a LOT. But kids can’t sit and decode words all day. By junior high or high school, the kids who succeed 9/13

the best in Language Arts, are those who read on their own because they like to read. They have higher comprehension, they have a higher level of writing ability. In the younger grades, in addition to phonics and grammar basics, there needs to be some effort to develop 10/13

an interest in and a love of reading. This can and should spill over into other subject areas if kids are encouraged to read about science, history, and other topics. And kids must learn ways to express their ideas in writing, early on. Even if imperfectly spelled. 11/13

I also spent a lot of time teaching French (immersion and as a second language). We were meant to use a ‘whole language’ approach, but I often broke it down to teach grammar concepts, verb conjugation etc. Because second language learners need both. Insisting that there is 12/13

one and ONLY one ‘tried and true’ method and ignoring the variety of learners in a classroom and their needs ends up serving few people well. 13/13