My application and interview process for the Anchorage School District Superintendent position offered me a good chance to describe the steps that our district is taking to increase student achievement. During the ASD process I shared the changes we have made in the past three years to improve our students’ learning experience; I was proud to note that the changes are making a difference. At the core of these are our new evaluation and curriculum development processes. On the curriculum side, our new guidelines for what is taught are non-negotiable. And while this requirement may seem obvious, in the past this wasn’t always the case. I know that mandating that teachers teach what is in the district’s curriculum causes some to flinch and to react by stating that we are diminishing instructional autonomy. This raises an important question of how much autonomy should a district have over instruction.
The reason we moved to tighten the learning experience for our students was based on the recognition that there was a wide variance in what was getting taught. For example, it was found that key concepts in the sixth grade curriculum were not being taught to all sixth graders. This resulting curriculum gap would inevitably articulate itself in middle school or high school leaving the student at a disadvantage. What the district is not attempting to control, is the art of teaching the content. Teachers are still free to respond to their students’ learning needs as they see fit. When trying to establish a system that offers a consistency in performance, the what, is non-negotiable, the how however, is why teachers are professionals.
The how and the what of teaching
My application and interview process for the Anchorage School District Superintendent position offered me a good chance to describe the steps that our district is taking to increase student achievement. During the ASD process I shared the changes we have made in the past three years to improve our students’ learning experience; I was proud to note that the changes are making a difference. At the core of these are our new evaluation and curriculum development processes. On the curriculum side, our new guidelines for what is taught are non-negotiable. And while this requirement may seem obvious, in the past this wasn’t always the case. I know that mandating that teachers teach what is in the district’s curriculum causes some to flinch and to react by stating that we are diminishing instructional autonomy. This raises an important question of how much autonomy should a district have over instruction.
The reason we moved to tighten the learning experience for our students was based on the recognition that there was a wide variance in what was getting taught. For example, it was found that key concepts in the sixth grade curriculum were not being taught to all sixth graders. This resulting curriculum gap would inevitably articulate itself in middle school or high school leaving the student at a disadvantage. What the district is not attempting to control, is the art of teaching the content. Teachers are still free to respond to their students’ learning needs as they see fit. When trying to establish a system that offers a consistency in performance, the what, is non-negotiable, the how however, is why teachers are professionals.