Learning to Think Inside the Box: A Mindset Shift

Learning to Think Inside the Box: A Mindset Shift

Two educators share their personal experiences with shifting mindset around curriculum

Katie- During my college years, my early years in the classroom, and up until the last few years, the words textbook and boxed curriculum left a sour taste in my mouth. I began my teaching career during a time of high teacher autonomy. I felt the textbooks and materials available did not adequately meet the demands of the standards being taught in my classroom. The presentation of the material wasn’t “visually appealing” or “student friendly.” So what was a teacher to do? I created my own materials. I made activities, presentations, games, practice work, assessments, etc. And what I could not make, I found on teacher sharing sites. I was proud of what I felt was resourcefulness and ability to provide for my students.

But then our state standards changed. A few years later, they changed again. The rigor and expectations increased dramatically. Literacy expectations now included regular practice with complex text and its vocabulary; reading and writing grounded in evidence from literary and informational text; and building knowledge through content-rich literary and informational text. Math expectations also increased and now included literacy standards as an integral component of the k-12 standards. This was a needed change that definitely benefited our children, but suddenly things were very different in the classroom. The materials I had been using were no longer making the grade. The things I had been creating or sourcing were not adequately meeting the rigor of these new standards. In online searches, I was able to find activities or materials that touched on these standards, but none that provided my children with the depth of experience they deserved to learn in a way they deserved. The time I spent finding or creating materials increased, not to mention the time I spent planning for instruction with those materials.

And it wasn’t just me. Most teachers I knew spent hour after hour sourcing and planning for instruction, working well after dismissal, late into the night and on weekends. We taught our hearts out, striving for engaging content and delivery, doing everything in our power to teach our students. No one complained. This is our job, our calling, and our students are worth it. But...yearly assessment scores continued to show a need for more, for something different to be done to meet our students’ needs.  

Something had to change, and that something was our mindset. Two years ago, our district began using a curriculum unlike anything we had used before. It looked different, the delivery was different, and the content was different. It had been a very long time since teachers had been asked to follow a boxed curriculum without deviating or supplementing. This was a mindset shift for many teachers, myself included. My pride had to be checked at the door. Were the activities and ideas I had previously been using truly meeting my students’ needs? While I have experience and professional knowledge, do I possess the knowledge and ability to sequence and build a high-quality, cohesive, aligned curriculum? Did I earn my college degrees in writing curriculum or curriculum delivery? If what we had been doing all this time wasn’t working, wasn’t it time to try something different?

            Tom-In comparison to Katie’s experience, and in an approach to meet students’ learning needs, as a grade level, my team grouped students by their ability level as a way to target the instruction for all learning levels. With three first grade classrooms, the high, middle, and low kids were separated. Because 100 percent of the students in my class were below grade level, I felt I had to move away from the grade level curriculum completely. Based on their readiness, I thought the first grade material was beyond them, and lower level work would be a better fit. After all, this was personalizing their education, right?  Now, looking back, my attempt to group, differentiate, and meet the students on their “learning level” unknowingly lowered the bar. It placed me into the mindset and led me to the false belief that growth, of any kind, was more important than ensuring my struggling learners caught up with the highest level learners in their grade level. Growth, more than grade level mastery, became my aim, and my expectations were lowered due to where the students were at the beginning of the year.

            Now looking back, and after implementing a rigorous, high-level curriculum in the classroom, as I utilized lower level instructional materials to meet my struggling students “where they were,” I not only lowered the bar, but I also approached differentiation and individualization completely wrong. By offering my students instructional materials below grade level, I thought I was meeting their needs by “plugging holes,” however, I now know that differentiation is not about assigning lower level material, and dumbing things down. Differentiated instruction, contrary to what I was taught in college, is all about bringing students up! Differentiation is all about high expectations, where the teacher’s time and support is different for different students, based on their needs. The level of work remains high and on grade level, yet the support offered by the teacher fluctuates based on where students are in their understanding. Differentiation never changes what the students do, but what the teacher does!

The results of shifting both of our mindsets around curriculum have been astounding. Our students’ learning has increased exponentially. Their confidence and engagement have skyrocketed. Our expectations of our students and of ourselves have risen. Planning time has decreased dramatically. No longer are hours upon hours required to create or source materials. The materials are in our hands. Now our time can be spent digging into the content and planning for effective instruction and delivery.

Research suggests that “choice of instructional materials can have an impact as large as, or larger than, the impact of teacher quality. The analogous supporting tools for teachers are instructional materials.” Are there materials of quality online and on teacher sharing sites? Absolutely. We have colleagues whose work is of such quality that entire districts have purchased it for use! But finding materials online doesn’t always guarantee quality. The rigor of our standards and the expectations for student learning have dramatically shifted. A mindset shift is needed to rethink the stance against boxed curriculum. Our children are worth setting aside our pride and long-held stances. Our children are worth trying something new for their benefit. They are worth looking for a better solution when current practice isn’t working. Our children are worth our best, and our best comes when we’re adequately equipped to do our best: teaching.

For more thoughts from Tom and Katie about curriculum, check out Rethinking the Resistance Against Boxed Curriculum