This year there has been a lot of changes in
the national curriculum. There have been changes in several subjects from first
grade up to secondary school. When we as teachers started work this autumn we
had to study the new plan, we had to find the changes (often small linguistic
differences), we had to rewrite our plans and re-evaluate our teaching
practise.
Do we welcome these changes? Do you
think we get enough time before we are suppose to change everything yet again?
Could all this time used making new plans be better spent with the children in
the classroom? Or do we need constant input to keep our teaching relevant and
up to date? Maybe we have to change, get new influences and new inspiration
from other countries to keep a dynamic school? What do you think?
I think we have to cope with changes whether we like it or not. The changes in the English Curriculum Makes it more spesific and may make it easier ro adapt out teaching according to it. Along with the new goverment, new ideas and viewpoints are what we have to expect. The effort we put into this may seems to be futile and pointless, but as obidient subjects I guess we have to submit to what they plan co carry out regarding changes implicating the educational institutions. However, it would be nice with a more stabile and predictable situation for us as teachers. It is almost like everybody else knows better how to do our job, than we as professionals do?
SvarSlettWhen we first were introduced to the Knowledge Promotion in 2006, that was when the really big changes set in. Now we had to think in a completely different way in terms of planning our teaching. Now we were able decide more ourselves , and could interpret the aims on our own. Some argue that we had less freedom earlier, With "L-97". Having that in mind, I feel that these changes are less overwhelming, than those we faced in 2006. Hopefully, the new government still believes in Krisin Clemet's Knowledge Promotion....
SvarSlettLinnea ask several questions regarding the changes in the national curriculum, and I think that all of them are relevant to discuss.
SvarSlettFor my own part, I think it can be a bit hectic when we switch curriculum. This time there were only a few changes in curricula, and I think it's easier to relate to that. An example can show that, the main area Communication in the previous English curriculum has been divided into written and oral communication. I believe this will make teachers more aware of what tasks they provide and why they provide exactly this task. And we need to think about what activities are appropriate within each of these areas for students to achieve the goals.
With the new changes I think we've got a better plan - it is more specific, and I like that.
I agree, Vigdis! Linnea raises a lot of important questions. The question if we rather would have wanted to spend time in our classroom with the pupils, than working on new plans, I find interesting. I feel that this is a constant "battle" being a teacher. The majority wants more time to concentrate on the children, however, we have to attend even more meetings and doing even more paperwork. Having said that, this is of course not meaningless, but anyways.....
SvarSlettThank you for your insightful comments. To sum up I think that positive changes in the curriculum are welcome, as long as they are constructive and don't require teachers to take a lot of time away from their main purpose; teaching children in the classroom.
SvarSlett