Deb Weston Curriculum Planning, Integration

What is Integrated Curriculum/Studies?

Integrated Curriculum crayons

As an elementary teacher, I have always integrated curriculum. The first reason to integrate is to cover a myriad of curriculum expectations; the second reason is that some curriculum just naturally flow together. Integrated curriculum programs show high levels of student engagement and academic performance (Clausen & Drake, 2010). Some curriculum natural fits include Science/Geography, History/English, and Mathematics/Science. Some Arts subjects, such as Drama and Visual Arts, make a multilayered approached to lessons and assessments as they add an additional venue to show learning. In middle school, I have had great success teaching the combined subjects of Math/Science (4 years in grade 8) and Language/Social Studies (4 years in grade 7).

In my master’s thesis work, I explored the concept of using Drama to teach Science. I developed many engaging lessons to act out Science concepts. As I implemented these lessons, I noticed that Science concepts were being well covered but, Drama concepts were not. In the lessons, Science was the main course and Drama was the side dish. As a PhD student, I taught a pre-service course in integrated studies at Brock University. The Intermediate/Senior pre-service teachers had challenges implementing the concepts into their practice, especially given the curriculum content requirements for secondary school credit courses.

Through my 18 years teaching at the elementary level (grades 2 to 8), I have come to realized that trying to integrate every subject into a unit or assessment is fruitless as one subject is always dominant (or the main course). For example, Mathematics always needs to be the main course because as a side dish, it is not covered to the depth in which is needed. As the middle school grades get into the depth of the curriculum content, it gets harder for teachers to cover a particular subjects well because the curriculum expectations are more extensive . Due to this, core subjects such as  Mathematics and Science are taught separately in grades 9 to 12 at the secondary school level.

Project-based instruction (Boss & Krauss, 2007) relies on the idea of integrated curriculum/studies. It is an interesting concept but as a researcher, I have found little peer-reviewed documentation stating it was sustainable in all school settings and at all grade levels. In addition, there are many versions of models (Drake, 2007) that may or may not fit into schools’ organizational or physical structures. For example, teaching integrated curriculum units requires teachers to share  equipment and other resources at the same time. In addition, teachers must be provided with additional planning time to accommodate the increased planning and collaboration needed so teachers can work together (Boss & Krauss, 2007).

Integrated curriculum models can vary greatly. Some models are curriculum driven and some are timetable driven. Timetable driven models present some challenges as there is always one class that gets a missmash of teachers teaching parts of various content areas. Based on my own anecdotal evidence, I have seen timetables where teachers are sharing Math strands with one teacher teaching Data Management/Probability and the other teaching all other Math strands. I have known of homeroom classes to have up to 5 teachers teaching the core curriculum content while other classes just have their homeroom teacher teaching these subjects. Given this model, I wonder how equitable and inclusive this particular timetable is for all students.

As a teacher with experience teaching grades 2 to 8, I find curriculum integration works well up to grade 6. After grade 6, the content curriculum is too deep for teachers to plan and teach all strands. I find it is also very taxing for teachers to deal with the complexity of curriculum integration and in addition, have to face the challenges of having many students with Special Education, English language learning, and behaviour needs. Further, the amount of content knowledge teachers need to teach these subjects is great. In Ontario, intermediate teachers need only two teachable subjects. In integrated curriculum models, teachers are expected to be generalists instead of specialists. This is especially challenging when some teachers do not have university Math credits or Math qualifications.

Project-based instruction is set in a collaborative-driven collegial framework.”Planning for integrated curriculum is a collaborative venture [where] educators use a backward design approach” (Wiggings & McTighe, 2005). “Teachers begin by exploring expectations to determine the most important to know, do, and be, on how to assess student outcomes” (Drake & Reid, 2010). Project-based curriculum integration texts, such as Reinventing Project-Based Learning (Boss & Krauss, 2007) provide teachers with the “what to do” but not always the “how to do it”. Nor do these texts (usually US based), account for the accountability of teachers to cover the curriculum required by their ministry or board. These texts do not account for the extra time teachers need to collaborate as timetables may not free up extra time for joint meetings within the instructional day. Teacher collaboration can have its own challenges as it can be hindered by competition and individualism amongst colleagues (Fullan & Hargreaves, 2012; Hargreaves, 1994; Weston, 2015).

The idea of integrated studies/curriculum, can be done well, but not at a full-blown, “teaching with all subjects” together model. Some curriculum subjects, especially Math, need to be the main dish and need to be at the main focus of lessons and assessments. Further, schools need to re-structure their time tables to allow teachers to collaborate to develop integrated lessons and assessments. And I believe that when working collaboratively, teachers are better together.

Integrated curriculum/studies can be a very striking way to engage students, especially since it reflects multi-disciplined real life world. But the “all-or-nothing” integrated curriculum exhausts teachers, teaching everything, and leaves many subjects taught as second thought, side dishes.

Collaboratively Yours,

Deb Weston

References

Boss, S., & Krauss, J. (2007). Reinventing project-based learning. Your field guide to real-world projects in the digital age. International Society for Technology in Education, Washington, DC.

Clausen, K. W., & Drake, S. M. (2010). Interdisciplinary Practices in Ontario: Past, Present, and Future. Issues in integrative studies, 28, 69-108. Downloaded at https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1101101

Drake, S. & Reid, J. (2010)., Integrated Curriculum, What works? Research into practice Series, Government of Ontario. Downloaded at http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/WW_Integrated_Curriculum.pdf

Drake, S. M. (2007). Creating Standards-Based Integrated Curriculum: Aligning Curriculum, Content, Assessment, and Instruction. Corwin Press, A SAGE Publications Company. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320.

Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press.

Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. Teachers College Press.

Weston, D. (2015). Investigating the relationships between teacher identity norms and collaboration. PhD Thesis, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON. Downloaded at http://dr.library.brocku.ca/handle/10

Deb Weston agency, Anti-bullying, Building Inclusion, Challenging Topics, Communication with Parents and Guardians, Diverse Learning Needs, Equity, LGBTQ2S, Social Justice

So why teach LGBTQIT human rights?

 Holding hands

 “Coming out hasn’t come as far as we think”

(Emma Teitel, national affairs columnist, Toronto Star, August 11, 2017, A8)

“Coming out” as a LGBTQIT* person, by making friends and family aware that they are not part of the heterosexual majority, has many implications. Specifically, LGBTQIT people who are not part of the “heterosexual” norm deal with great social, health, emotional, and economic barriers. Our LGBTQIT students, colleagues, and parents, regularly deal with discrimination on many levels including bullying and threats of violence. This is why not all LGBTQT people come out. According to an online Quebec survey (commissioned by the Foundation Jasmin Roy, an anti bullying/violence organization), it was reported that 45 percent of LGBTQIT respondents said they kept their sexual orientation or gender identity hidden due to worries of discrimination (Teitel, August 11, 2017). In the survey, 81 percent of LGBTQIT respondents agreed that Canadians are open-minded about gender and sexuality but 75 percent believed that more work needed to be done to support the LGBTQIT communities (Teitel,  August 11, 2017).

So why do teachers need to teach LGBTQIT human rights?

Why do teachers need to address these topics in Ontario classrooms? (especially when some parents disagree with teaching about sexuality and gender)

Health and Phy Ed 2015

The new health and physical education curriculum (Government of Ontario, 2015a), dealing with LGBTQIT topics, was updated in 2010 after remaining untouched since 1998. After protests by some religious groups, the Liberal government backed away from an attempted update of the health and physical education curriculum in 2010 (National Post, February 2015). The Ontario Health and Physical Education Curriculum was the most outdated curriculum in Canada (Rushowy, September 2015).

In 2015, Premier Kathleen Wynn vowed that the updated curriculum would be implemented in the 2015/2016 school year.

In September 2015, the curriculum was introduced into Ontario schools. There was a strong backlash from parents and communities. Often the groups opposed to any curriculum dealing with sexuality and gender were misinformed by the content of the contentious parts of the health curriculum. To repond to this, the Government of Ontario developed A Parent’s Guide: Human Development and Sexual Health in the Health and Physical Education Curriculum (Government of Ontario, 2015b).

The Peel Board of Education’s director, Tony Pontes, stated that “We cannot — we will not — by action or inaction endorse discrimination,” who cited Ontario’s Human Rights Code as applying to people of all sexual orientation and gender identity. Mr. Pontes went on to state that “Supported by legal opinion, bolstered by our core values, I would no more say yes to someone wanting a child excluded because of a discussion about LGBTQ than I would a discussion about race or gender.” (Rushowy, September 2015). Further, Mr. Pontes stated that while some parents had “genuine concerns”, the board would work to address issues brought up by the critics of the updated sex-ed curriculum. These critics misinformed parents in order to “raise fear, generate untruths and build constituencies of protest based on false information” (Rushowy, September 2015). Mr. Pontes, the director of the Peel Board of Education, found this unconscionable. In addition, Mr. Pontes stated that the Peel Board of Education was willing to lose students over its stance of inclusion for all (Rushowy, September 2015). Some school boards lost students and some teachers lost teaching positions (based on my own anecdotal observations). Often, there are costs as a result of taking a stance to uphold human rights.

In 2015, even though I was not a “Health and Physical Education” teacher, I did deal with issues around sexuality and gender. In our school, we had students and colleagues that prHuman Development Guideesented as LGBTQIT. In addition, we discussed LGBTQIT inclusion during the Day of Pink  and while discussing human rights topics. I received notes from parents asking me not to talk about same sex couples on the Day of Pink. I also had students missing from school on the Day of Pink. Some parents believed that discussions of inclusion were only limited to specific school days. Parents needed to realize that teachers talk about inclusion, as needed, especially when students rights are being suppressed. Inclusion is not limited to skin colour, culture, religion, chosen head coverings, ethnicity, ancestry, citizenship, disability, or diet.

Teachers do not get to pick and choose which topics of inclusion they will address because all issues regarding human rights apply.

Some of my teacher colleagues have stated that they do not honour LGBTQIT rights. Some students have told me that their parents do not believe in LGBTQIT rights. I have had parents phone me to tell me not to discuss LGBTQIT rights in class. Imagine what would happen if a parent, student, or teacher stated that they did not want teachers to teach about the rights of people of different races or religions.

As teachers, we must honour the rights of all people because we provide educational services within the province of Ontario. It is part of our role, as teachers, to uphold human rights and protect against discrimination as per the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability.  R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 1; 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (1); 2001, c. 32, s. 27 (1); 2005, c. 5, s. 32 (1); 2012, c. 7, s. 1. (Ontario Human Rights Code, updated December 5, 2016)

As teachers, there is no opting out of the Human Rights Code.

Toronto Star national affairs columnist, Emma Teitel was accepted by her family and friends when she told them she was gay. She stated that coming out “sucks, even for the lucky ones like me” (Teitel, August 10, 2017). Yes, her family and friends accepted her for who she was. She affirmed that there is still a long way to go. Teitel stated that she still faces challenges when kissing her partner in public without getting “molested by creeps”. She hopes that one day  that “thousands of transgendered people [will] no longer fear for their lives every time they step out their doors” (Teitel, August 10, 2017). Ms. Teitel wishes this for all  people in the LGBTQIT community.

As a parent of a gay adult child, I hope one day my daughter can live her life with her partner, in peace, without being stared at every time they hold hands in public. I hope that with the work of the Ontario education system, being LGBTQIT will be part of an inclusive culture in Ontario.

Collaboratively Yours,

Deb Weston

*LGBTQIT is a short form for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Questioning, Intersexual, Two-spirited people (please note this is my most recent understanding of the term)

References

Government of Ontario, (2016). Ontario Human Rights Code. Downloaded from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90h19

Government of Ontario. (2015a). The Ontario Curriculum, Grades 1-8: Health and Physical Education, 2015 (revised), Government of Ontario. Downloaded from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/health.html

Government of Ontario. (2015b). A Parent’s Guide: Human Development and Sexual Health in the Health and Physical Education Curriculum, Government of Ontario. Downloaded from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/curriculum/elementary/HPEgrades1to6.pdf

Rushowy, K., (September 2, 2015). Peel board won’t exempt kids from learning about gay families, gender issues, Toronto Star, Downloaded from https://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/education/2015/09/02/peel-board-wont-exempt-kids-from-learning-about-gay-families-gender-issues.html

Teitel, E., (August 10, 2017), Coming out sucks, even for the lucky ones like me, Toronto Star, Downloaded from https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/08/10/coming-out-sucks-even-for-the-lucky-ones-like-me-teitel.html

Teitel, E., (August 11, 2017), Coming out hasn’t come as far as we think, Toronto Star, A8. Downloaded from http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1493875-opinion-coming-out-hasn%E2%80%99t-come-as-far-as-we-think

The National Post. (February 23, 2015). National Post View: New sex ed curriculum should be sensitive to all sides, The National Post, Downloaded from http://nationalpost.com/opinion/national-post-view-new-sex-ed-curriculum-should-be-sensitive-to-all-sides/wcm/596af7c3-9704-4a2f-aad7-543cb8bbc99a

Deb Weston Challenging Topics, Occasional Teachers, Occasional Teaching

Being a Temporary Teacher

if you can read this

 

While I was in Japan this summer, I came across an English language newspaper article in The Japan News (written by Yuko Ohiro & Sachiko Asakuno). The article talked about the plight of “temporary or non-regular teachers” which in 2016 filled up to 10 percent of the teaching positions. Due to declining enrollment and a falling birthrate, boards of education are limiting their hiring of regular teachers. Temporary teachers are not substitute teachers who are hired to cover maternity and child leave. The article states that the hiring of temporary teachers is a result of the trend in small class sizes and team teaching with multiple instructors. Since 2001, the hiring of temporary teachers has increased by 1.7 times (or 170 percent) from 24,296 in 2001 to 41,030 in 2016.

The temporary teachers are expected to carry the same workload as “regular” teachers. Like regular Japanese teachers, temporary teachers work long hours and are expected to take on extra responsibilities such as mentoring new teachers, running extracurricular activities, acting as club advisors, and doing summer home visits (as homeroom teachers). One temporary teacher stated that he was working over 12 hours a day which accounted for more than 100 hours overtime in one month. His salary is about 60 percent of that of a regular teacher.

Japanese regular employment is based on the Local Civil Service Law which ensures the rights of employees. But a loophole exempts temporary teachers whose employment limited to under a year. Therefore boards of education dismiss non-regular teachers and then hire them back so their working term does not exceed a year. This means temporary teachers go with no income during their lay-off period. Under the Local Contract Law, temporary workers are entitled to full-time contracts if their term of work continues over 5 years. According to the Japan Teacher’s Union (February 2017), temporary teachers have worked an average of 5.9 years before getting full-time employment. Another law, The Labour Standards Law applies to temporary workers ensuring they receive a number of paid holidays in relation to their days worked. Due to short term layoffs, temporary teachers do not receive the required paid holidays.

An official at the Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology Ministry stated the “there is a growing number of cases where boards of education avoid hiring regular [full-time] teachers due to worries about long-term employment and hire temporary teachers with a fixed term”. A senior official of a board of education stated that hiring of non-regular teachers is used as a “regulating value” of employment. The official added “we can’t dismiss regular teachers even if the number of children declines significantly in the future. This would create an enormous financial burden. Therefore we hired more temporary teachers while limiting the employment of newly graduated regular ones”. Another senior official of a board of education confessed “the age range of teachers would become unbalanced if newly graduated regular teachers were to increase alongside the retirement of teachers hired en mass in the days when there were quite a few more children. We hire temporary teachers as an interim measure to survive the current conditions”.

The Internal Affairs and Communications Ministry has informed local governments and board of education not to use contract renewals to make temporary teachers’ work the same way as regular teachers. This ministry stated that despite the temporary contract and short-term lay-off period, temporary teachers could be deemed as working continuously and therefore be entitled to permanent regular teacher contracts. Professor Tadashi Yamaguchi (Nihon Fukushi University) stated that short term employment makes it difficult for teachers to improve their teaching practice and hinders a stable education for students. With a teacher’s licence, temporary teachers do not have to pass the education boards’ recruitment exam. Although the article cites many parents stating that the temporary teachers are very hard working and dedicated, the parents are concerned about the poor treatment of these teachers from their boards. In addition, parents are concerned that many great teachers may give up teaching as it is challenge to stay motivated with temporary employment.

After reading this article, I considered the challenges faced by Ontario’s long term occasional teachers currently (i.e. temporary teachers). As a former long term occasional teacher, I know how unsettling it was not knowing whether I would be employed the following year. Although I did get the same rate of pay as a full-time contract (i.e. regular teacher), my pay was low as it was only my first year of teaching. That summer, I was lucky to find work … but I still juggled money as I was a single parent of two children. I was also fortunate to get full-time work the following year.

Now, my long term occasional colleagues have to work and average of 6 or 7 years (based on my own anecdotal observations) before they get full-time employment. This is strikingly similar to the Japanese Teacher Union’s number of 5.9 years before full-time work. I realized that Ontario is having similar challenges to Japan with shrinking student enrolment due to low birth rates.

It is my hope, with the support of our union, ETFO, and the Ministry of Education, that our occasional teachers will be treated well and they will not have to continue to face long years of precarious employment.

Deb Weston

References

Ohiro, Y. & Asakuno, S, (2017, July 13) Non-regular teachers’ zeal goes. The Japan News, Edition S, From The Yomiuri Shimbun, July 4, 2017,  p. 5. http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003801906

Ohiro, Y. & Asakuno, S, (2017, July 13) Cutbacks in regular employment. The Japan News, Edition S, From The Yomiuri Shimbun, July 4, 2017 p. 5. http://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0003801906

Deb Weston agency, Challenging Topics, Constant Learning, General, Inspiring Teachers, Making a Difference Through Education, Mentorship, Professional Judgement, Professional Learning and Growth, Resilience, self reflection, wellness

Getting Past “The 5 Year Wall”

wall peek

As a new elementary teacher, I believed I would really know what I was doing after 5 years of practice. After 5 years in my previous careers, I could handle just about anything. I had 8 years experience as a student in elementary school. And, yes, I had watched my elementary teachers teach. I thought, “How hard can it be?” I figured after 5 years of teaching, working long hours after and on weekends, I’d be able to relax a bit.

But back then, I was very naive.

There was a lot about teaching I did not know or even consider. I did not count on having to switch grade levels every year for the first 5 years of my practice. I thought I’d have readily available teacher resources. I did not know that teachers spent a great deal of their own money to stock their classrooms with supplies and books. Nor did I realize I would be expected to implement waves of educational initiatives within a year of introduction. Further, I had not considered having students functioning at grade levels below the grade I was teaching or dealing with special education needs with little or no support. In addition, I did not know how to deal with students who had behaviour issues – in my first week of teaching grade 8, a student threw a chair at me. I also was hoping to get support and mentorship from my teacher colleagues, which at the time was not always forthcoming. My teacher education had not prepared me for all of this.

So I pushed forward by working hard and doing the best for my students. I took courses that I thought would fill in some gaps, which helped a bit. I solicited curriculum support from my colleagues and spent a great deal of time talking to my peers about my classroom challenges. My colleagues were very helpful and I absorbed as much wisdom as I could from my tenured peers.

Then it happened. I hit “The 5 Year Wall”. After 5 years of teaching, I thought I’d know more and feel more effective in my practice. I thought my lesson plans should be going the way I planned them. I thought that my classroom management would be awesome by this time. Instead, I was left with feelings of frustration and dissatisfaction in myself as a teacher. I thought, maybe if I worked harder, I would feel more effective; I was so disappointed in myself.

But because I was very committed and dedicated to becoming a great teacher, I moved forward facing many challenges. I continued to seek support and mentorship from my colleagues. My collaborative collegial support proved to have the biggest impact on my practice. My colleagues saved me from my professional dissolution.

Then something else happened. Around my 7th and 8th year of teaching, I started to feel my levels of self-efficacy and self-confidence rising. I started to finally feel like I knew what I was doing … most of the time. At 7+ years of teaching, I still faced challenges with switching grades. I realized that educational initiatives did not always stick. Lack of continued resource support or the introduction of a “new” initiative, often meant the end to last year’s latest innovation. Having students with multiple functioning levels and needs was a classroom norm. My teacher skin grew thicker when dealing with student and parent issues. I realized that lesson plans were made to be adapted to address the students’ needs, not the teachers. After 8 years of practice, I really started to enjoy teaching.

While researching, I discovered that my experience of building professional confidence and self-efficacy was supported in the literature. In the British VITAE study of 300 teachers in 100 schools, authors Day, Sammons, Stobart, Kingston, and Gu (2007) showed that teachers’ levels of confidence and self-efficacy continue to grow until around the 7 year mark. After 8 years, teachers reached a significant turning point in their professional development (Day et al., 2007).

I thought about what made this 7 year mark so significant. Then a friend mentioned that in the book Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell stated that in order to master any skill  it takes “to a large extent, a matter of practicing … for a total of around 10,000 hours” (Gladwell, 2008).  I did the calculations and the 7 year mark correlated with about 10,000 hours of teaching practice. This made sense because teaching is a complex and challenging profession and as a result it takes over 7 years to develop high levels of professional efficacy. Further to this, as teachers’ professional knowledge grows, so does their professional judgement.

Well into my 8th year of teaching I noticed several new teachers experiencing high levels of professional frustration. Some of these teachers were so distressed they regretted becoming teachers. Some were thinking of leaving the profession. Remembering my own frustration, I reached out to my novice colleagues. I told them about The 5 Year Wall. In my following years of teaching, I have talked many novice teachers off the ledge of The 5 Year Wall. Sometimes there were tears. Sometimes there were daily pep talks. Sometimes there were weekly meetings at a well known coffee shop. After my years of collegial mentorship and support, my colleagues have become excellent teachers.

So if a new teacher talks to you about their professional frustration, tell them about The 5 Year Wall. Tell them to hang in for the next few years so they can reach their professional turning point in year 8. Support them with your mentorship and listen to their concerns. Because in isolation, there are no colleagues to inspire novice teachers with ideas or to suggest resources/strategies or to support them when it’s really needed. And even as an 18 year plus teacher, I thank my colleagues for all the mentorship, collaboration, and support they continue to give me, every day.

I believe that when working collaboratively, teachers are better together.

Collaboratively Yours,

Deb Weston

 

References

Day, C., Sammons, P., Stobart, G., Kingston, A., & Gu, Q. (2007). Teachers matter: Connecting lives, work and effectiveness. Maidenhead, UK: Open University

Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The story of success. Hachette UK.