BC's New Science Curriculum

I was getting stuck in some linear thinking. I couldn't see how the new curricular competencies and content were supposed to fit together seamlessly.

For many subjects, we've been given a grid that links competencies and content in perfect little boxes to tick.
"Develop and apply mental math strategies..." could go with, say, "multiplication and division facts to 100." Very nice for us A-types who like boxes to tick.

Science has presented an interesting problem for me. Every single one of the curriculuar competencies relates to the scientific process- from questioning, predicting, and designing experiments, to analyzing results and communicating conclusions.

Love it. I'm all about the scientific process. However...

the curriculum doesn't specifically say anything about learning the content. When do we actually teach them information?
My confusion was thinking that the competencies were supposed to be the only way to learn the content. Which was frustrating when I have things like excretory, endocrine and reproductive systems on the docket. Question, predict and design an experiment? I can think of a few but not to teach our entire content!  It doesn't help that the Grade 6 textbook - a fabulous resource- is now completely dead to us.

I also can't help feeling that I am using that old, linear way of thinking- and seeing myself, or the textbook as the main learning tools.

I sent out a desperate plea for help to our brand new Science Helping Teacher, Craig, about this and he helped me clarify it in my mind. I knew I can't be the only one who is asking these questions, so I thought I'd share his advice, and my ways of making sense of it all.

Students will Know the Content by Doing the Curricular Competencies in order to Understand the Big Ideas.

He suggested trying to hit the competencies over the year; some topics lend themselves more to certain parts of the competencies. Ie- Focus on planning and predicting for Chemistry, Applying and Innovating for Space etc.

This was a very helpful insight for me:
Curricular Competencies get emphasized much more deeply than they have in the past because they have been neglected. But they do not replace the learning of information. They only change some of the way that information is learned. Rather than just telling them stuff, hands-on learning is the starting point for exploration. But there will always be a place for us to “teach” (in the old-fashioned sense) information.    

Phew!   Ok- I don't have to throw out everything I've ever done or the methods that I've taught. 
So here's my summary of all this brain spewing I've been doing:

Content is what they should (could) know

Curricular competencies are what they should do- but not exclusively. The competencies don't have to be the only way we should be learning it. (Again, it was the grid concept that was throwing me off.)

Time to start shift that lens and start planning!

UPDATE: Aug 2017
After teaching the it for a year, I've come to a bit of a different way of thinking. What if... the curricular competencies are really the focus? The content is the suggested way you can meet those, but not the 'must complete.'

I killed myself trying to fit in 4 body systems, chemistry (a small and random piece, I might add), space, Science Fair and Newton's laws this year. And I was already integrating all my Language Arts into Science- which was my main focus for my 2 days I teach. I still had the old way of thinking, that I had to cover it all. This way of thinking is a lot more freeing.

A New Hope

Kudos to those of you  who caught the Star Wars reference in my title.  My husband would be proud.

I was very encouraged the other day while working with a student teacher. I am mentoring her through the incredibly difficult year of learning basically everything there is to know about teaching. Of course we learn and grow so much over our careers, but besides your first year, student teaching is one of the most intense times of growth. At least it was for me. And the worst part is, not only are you learning how to do it, you are being constantly monitored and judged at the same time.

This brings me to a thought someone planted in my head a long time ago, and I've never forgotten:
It is very difficult to be a mentor and an evaluator at the same time.

Think about it.

This is the flaw of the student teaching program, being highly dependent on the teacher you are placed with. Some are mentors, some are evaluators, and very few are both.

The first thing I told Emily (aforementioned student teacher) is that your student teaching year is one where you are supposed to LEARN. You don't have to be perfect at everything at the start (or ever after that!)  She compared herself to her classmates, many of whom taught overseas or as an EA in a classroom for many years. So many of us hold the expectation that we have to enter our student teaching year already knowing everything. You don't. But you do have to be able to take chances, reflect on your practice and be constantly learning and evolving.

So this brings me to my blog post title- and why I was encouraged with the new generation of teachers coming up through the system.
Emily and I were looking at differentiated instruction in math. We talked about how it is important to assess your students before you teach them, to see where the students are. For a lot of (ahem) older teachers like myself, even this is a novel concept. It is not just giving them a pre-test worksheet and then doing things the same- it is a whole paradigm shift of how we teach.
For Emily, it seemed this was common practice in her university studies. (1 point for UBC!)

After assessing students, there are many different ways to address their needs. We talked about guided math, small group instruction, games for fluency practice, and more. Then after lessons and, of course, units, there is more assessment of their learning.

Ok, now I'm getting to the exciting part.

She asked a very simple, but profound question. It separates the older generation from the newer generation of teachers (which has nothing to do with age or years teaching, but philosophy).

She asked, "So what do you do with the students who still didn't get the concept?"

For so many years, we have been evaluators. Teachers, yes, but in the end, we are judgers, putting kids into Good, Satisfactory or Needs Improvement. Gets it or doesn't get it.
What if we didn't stop until they did?

I know, we all immediately go to the logistical frustration/ impossibility of this concept. That is, if you are looking at it with the same lens you have always had, and teaching the way we always have.

NO WONDER kids get so behind by the later grades- we've moved on and stamped a "didn't get it" on their report card. I am the teacher who works with the struggling students. The ones who think they are not smart, and yes, the ones who have been left behind. I applaud Surrey District for taking away some of the pressure to label kids through letter grades. What if we were more cheerleader and less of a judge? What about leading them through their learning where they are at?

I believe this is where education is headed- what all those buzz words like differentiation and student-directed learning are trying to say.

Even if you don't agree with how it can work, it's an interesting conversation.