This articles examines the need for Creative teaching as opposed to Scripted teaching. The article argues that the learning generated from creative teaching is harder to quantify on standardized testing where as the lower order skills taught through scripted lessons are easier to measure.
This is the Expository Reading and Writing Course that many of us are adopting. It actually doesn't have to be an either/or. Yes there is less literature and more expository writing; however, most of us also incorporate some literature. I teach Things Fall Apart in a Socratic Seminar format, Macbeth in a more traditional format, and some poetry. The modules from the Expository Reading and Writing Binder are open-ended and need some updating, but they give students an excellent variety of college-like readings and writing instruction. Students learn to critically read passages and interpret their own thinking in writing. The writing instruction is key and not as well defined as the reading instruction in the modules. Teachers need to creatively design the lessons to prepare students to write argument with ease.
I totally understand why experienced teachers may feel this way. HOWEVER, this is a way for our school system to make sure that teachers are at least addressing the correct material in class.
I can see how failing inner city schools, with students in the absolute worst conditions, might benefit from a scripted program. I don't agree that it's right, but I can see how one might justify the implementation of such a method when all else seems to have failed. I cringed at the end of the article when the teacher said that the scripted program "allowed for alittle bit of personality" on the teacher's part to show through... A LITTLE BIT?! Isn't the personality of the teacher that acts as an example for the students? isn't it the personality of the teacher that students "judge" right off the bat, sometimes effecting how much they choose to learn and participate in that particular class? I can't believe people actually believe our whole nation, which is SUPPOSED to be a diverse melting pot of people and experience, should adopt this rigid and inflexible curriculum method.
I agree that direct instruction may help some students but I feel like a scripted lesson denies the individuality of the students and the teacher. These types of lessons tell you how to conduct the lesson word for word as well as how to answer students' questions. I feel like this takes all creativity out of teaching and turns the teacher into a robot. These systems are also meant to "teacher-proof" the classroom so that even bad teacher can "teach" as long as they know how to read.
Wow and the scripted curriculum even tells the teacher how to answer questions?! If school, especially high school, is supposed to reflect a small scale-real world for students then what kind of message are we sending when we ("we" being teachers) are told how to do everything by a higher power; that we're all more successful if we do everything exactly the same all the time? So much for the development of critical literacy.
. These standards become the basis for the way teachers are trained, what they
teach and what is on state standardized tests that students take. For example, a
first-grade math standard may state that by the end of first grade students are
expected to count by 2s, 5s and 10s to 100.
. Although poor and minority students have made gains, there is still a big
difference — commonly called "the achievement gap" — between what these students
have achieved when compared to their more affluent and white peers.
Without standards, districts and schools don't have goals to shoot for.