The BC Integrated Resource Packages (IRPs) set out the curriculum for each subject area and at each grade level. The IRPs were guided by some important principles of learning: that learning requires active participation by the student, that there are a variety of ways and rates of learning, that learning is both an individual and a group process and is most effective when students reflect on the process of learning. The IRPs also attempt to recognize and accommodate for, diversity in the classroom. These are all laudable objectives but in one case study described below, the IRP is failing a student. This failure may be indirect, and may actually be caused by the reality of budget constraints and limited resources for schools, but the constraints of the IRP, in terms of assessment and Prescribed Learning Outcomes (PLOs) are ultimately a large part of this failure. Also the constraints of the IRPs, specifically with regard to the Recommended Learning Resources may present a challenge for teachers who attempt to implement a reading/writing workshop model (where students choose what they read and write) in the classroom.
The IRP provides us with a framework for curriculum delivery. Specifically the IRPs supply the teacher with the learning objectives the students need to attain in each subject and grade, that is what the students need to learn but not how they learn it- this is where the teacher's creativity, vision and training become important. Since the IRP allows for flexibility in curriculum delivery, I would use many of the ideas from our readings and discussions in order to engage the students in their learning while still reaching the PLOs as described in the IRPs. For example, a precursor to any real learning is dependent upon building a relationship with each of your students, as illustrated so clearly in the case of Zerina in the article “The Need to Write, the Need to Listen” written by Ruth Shagoury. Zerina is also an example of some of the diversity of students we will encounter as new teachers. It was a difficult challenge to engage Zerina, who had been traumatized by her wartime experiences but it was well worth the effort. Through the process of engaging Zerina, the teacher not only brought out Zerina's writing talents but also helped her come to terms with her past while at the same time helping other students, and the teacher to understand the horrors of war. The case of Zerina provides a vivid example of the importance of building relationships and engaging all students, making sure that they all have a voice and have something to contribute. Zerina also provides us with an example of the diversity we could meet in our classrooms, in this case an immigrant from war torn Bosnia. There will most assuredly be students in the classroom with varied backgrounds, cultures, learning styles, students with disabilities, behavioural issues, personalities, the list is endless. This diversity presents both a challenge but also an opportunity for learning, exploring and understanding for the teacher and the students.
There are certain things which can be done to encourage engagement in learning. A key aspect of any effective learning seems to be relevancy to the student. As Atwell and others have pointed out, giving students a choice in their reading encourages students to read more widely and carefully and allowing them choice in what they write about also increases their enthusiasm for writing. The workshop model that Atwell presents has been shown to be successful in engaging students in reading and writing and encourages students to discuss what they are reading and writing in a collaborative way with fellow students and the teacher. Of course one of the challenges for the teacher that uses the workshop approach would be to ensure that the PLOs in the IRP are all being satisfied in the context of the workshop. Since the IRP is a curriculum guide it itemizes what the outcomes must be not how to get there. Thus a workshop model should be able to be used in order to reach the goals set out in the IRP. Though Atwell's focus is on reading and writing there is also a large oral component in the workshop setting. Students spend time discussing their readings and writings with other students and the teacher.
Though the IRP is a curriculum guide it does contain a Learning Resource section for each grade. These learning resources have been approved by the Government of BC for use in the classroom and if the teacher wishes to use other resources they must be evaluated through a local, board-approved process. This fact may make the practical implementation of a reading and writing workshop problematic. If the idea is to allow students to have choice in their reading and writing, the fact that each book chosen by the students must first go through an approval process makes the implementation of a workshop very difficult. Also the fact that the resources a school may have could be very limited (due to budget constraints) the choice the students have is even more limited.
When looking at the oral development of the students, we want to strive for authentic discourse in the classroom. This does not consist of a teacher simply asking questions and eliciting answers from the students; rather, the students themselves are encouraged to wonder and generate questions, to become independent learners. As Probst explains in “Tom Sawyer Teaching and Talking”, the teacher's role lies in managing the discourse, keeping it organized and flowing but also in enriching it by bringing up points they may have missed and questions that may not have occurred to them. Gradually the students will be able to speak in more sophisticated and intelligent ways independently of the teacher. As with reading and writing the responsibility for learning is shifted to the student. From observing students, knowing them, engaging them in learning relevant to them and slowly letting go, students will begin to learn independently.
A case I recently learned about came to mind when considering how, indirectly, the IRP did not serve the interests of the student. The case involved a student who was having difficulty in all subject areas and when assessed, her report card was all “not meeting expectations” and a few “approaching expectations.” The teacher expressed frustration with a system that officially proclaims that “the curriculum must fit the child”, when in the real, day to day world the child has to fit the curriculum. The student had been the subject of school based team meetings but had not been formally diagnosed (now in grade 5, she has been on a wait list for official diagnosis since grade 1).
The learning assistance teacher initially worked on her literacy skills and during the year the student’s assessment rose only slightly in some areas of literacy from “not meeting expectations” to “approaching expectations”. The teacher noted multiple problems with language acquisition including reversals, leaving out words and sounds, comprehension, problems with written output and others. During this time the student was also going through the emotional upheaval of family breakup and lived part time in three residences. Despite these conditions, the student did receive home support in her schooling. The teacher also noted that the student had attention issues: she was very easily distracted, often forgot her homework, used avoidance techniques, had trouble focusing and wanted to draw during silent reading time.
The student still struggled in all areas except was recognized as being creative and very artistic (visual arts and drama); she also had coordination issues (gross motor skills). During this time the teacher attempted to teach to the student’s strengths, using her art skills in an integrated manner in order to teach other areas of the curriculum. The teacher also implemented “best practices” accommodations such as scribing for the student, one-on-one oral interactions, computer text input with spell checks and home research on projects with parent involvement and others. This “band-aid”solution was also designed to attempt to engage the student and keep her self-esteem intact. Currently the student is still receiving learning assistance and is scheduled to be formally tested by Christmas.
Recognizing that students have different learning needs is key. The problem is that the learning disability or disabilities the student has are not clearly defined because of lack of formal assessment. This formal assessment is a key factor in moving the learning of the student forward, making an individual learning plan that recommends approaches and/ or treatments and sets realistic learning goals. In essence, the formal assessment is necessary in order to understand what they are dealing with and to devise a clear IEP (Individual Education Plan) for the student with appropriate modifications and accommodations. Here with the long delay in diagnosis, the system has let down this student, the teachers have done their best to accommodate the student, taught to her strengths and attempted to keep her self-esteem intact but without a diagnosis and corresponding IEP, the IRP has forced the teachers to give the student poor assessments which undermine her confidence and engagement. This case study illustrates how students can “fall through the cracks” and end up struggling and disengaged and finally may end up dropping out of school, even when teachers have the best intentions.
Overall the IRP provides a framework and a good starting point for the teacher. It provides the goals for learning in the form of PLOs as well as some useful considerations for delivery. It also provides us with assessment models and recommended resources. It presents the teacher with a “toolbox” which can help the beginning teacher to build his classroom. How these tools are used is up to the teacher: this is where the training and creativity of the teacher becomes so important. One challenge the IRP presents is in limiting the choice of students to approved learning resources thus making the implementation of a reading/writing workshop model more difficult. Also framing a workshop so that it satisfies all the PLOs may also be a challenge. Finally in a situation where a student who has a learning disability or other undiagnosed condition and therefore does not have an IEP, may not be served well by the IRP and the PLOs when all the student ever gets on their assessments are “not meeting expectations.” This is a sure way to lower a student's self-esteem, erode their confidence and disengage the student from learning.
