And pity the poor, novice teacher of 9th grade algebra who is given, as I posted above, and amaga-mesh of websites, lesson seeds, and Guiding Principles and is told to create a lesson plan that will meet the needs of all their students, including those who don't speak any English, to master the required objectives.

Meanwhile the one way kids really ARE very different is in terms of what foundational skills they have already mastered in their subject. 9th grade algebra teachers are supposed to be able to teach algebra even to students who still haven't mastered basic computation, fractions, decimals and percents. Instead of being able to sy "These kids aren't ready for this class" they need to pretend that they are able to remediate for lagging skills PLUS teach the concepts.... and they are supposed to have lesson plans to cover all contingencies -- it is nonsense. Writing lesson plans won't solve the problem which is that the kids don't have the skills they need and require direct instruction in their lagging skills (which requires a separate course or summer school or tutoring, not elaborately written alternate lesson plans)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


You must teach in a very homogenous situation if all you have to do is "tweak".



Kids aren't that different. And many of their differences you don't address in a lesson plan anyhow... you address with a behavior plan.

Huh? Are all of the adults you know not that different as well?

NP here. I still don't get it. I did technical training for years, teaching adults. I had a workbook with lessons. I taught the same material to different groups of adults. Yes, they may have had different abilities, and I had to tweak the plans at times, but generally the same lessons worked over and over and over. We improved the examples over time, modified things as the software changed, but I never felt like I was starting from scratch, and I don't understand why this is happening year after year in K-12 education.

It doesn't have to. Some teachers do a whole lot more work than is strictly necessary and believe they are doing what they have to do to be successful or a good teacher. They often burn out. The vast majority of all this rewriting of lesson plans is completely unnecessary.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


You must teach in a very homogenous situation if all you have to do is "tweak".



Kids aren't that different. And many of their differences you don't address in a lesson plan anyhow... you address with a behavior plan.

Huh? Are all of the adults you know not that different as well?

NP here. I still don't get it. I did technical training for years, teaching adults. I had a workbook with lessons. I taught the same material to different groups of adults. Yes, they may have had different abilities, and I had to tweak the plans at times, but generally the same lessons worked over and over and over. We improved the examples over time, modified things as the software changed, but I never felt like I was starting from scratch, and I don't understand why this is happening year after year in K-12 education.

Because you were only teaching content to adults who presumably were already literate and had years of background knowledge from which to draw. Try having to teach content to a room of kids with varying levels of literacy and some who have had no experiences outside of their neighborhood. It's completely different than technical training for adults. You merely had to present material.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


You must teach in a very homogenous situation if all you have to do is "tweak".



Kids aren't that different. And many of their differences you don't address in a lesson plan anyhow... you address with a behavior plan.

Huh? Are all of the adults you know not that different as well?

NP here. I still don't get it. I did technical training for years, teaching adults. I had a workbook with lessons. I taught the same material to different groups of adults. Yes, they may have had different abilities, and I had to tweak the plans at times, but generally the same lessons worked over and over and over. We improved the examples over time, modified things as the software changed, but I never felt like I was starting from scratch, and I don't understand why this is happening year after year in K-12 education.

Lessons plans and curricula are another. You should in fact have been reusing the same plans and lessons. Once you have something in place that works and brings good results, there is no need to change it.


I don't know what will get through to PP. Not every lesson plan that works is a success with every kid. This thread is a prime example. Despite getting multiple explanations and examples, some people refuse to get why teachers have to do things in different ways for different kids.

Good response.

And, my response to the bolded: Don't you wish to do better every year? Is there no room for improvement in your plans?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is it, in this day and age, schools don't have class lessons that are ready to go for teachers? Why is everyone starting from scratch?

Because teaching isn't an automated factory-production process?

As a former teacher, I totally agree.

I taught for years--guess what? I never regurgitated lesson plans. Every year, I made new plans. I have not taught in several years and I understand that it is more regimented now than when I taught.

+1 also a former teacher

l

The art of teaching is one thing.

Lessons plans and curricula are another. You should in fact have been reusing the same plans and lessons. Once you have something in place that works and brings good results, there is no need to change it.

I don't know what will get through to PP. Not every lesson plan that works is a success with every kid. This thread is a prime example. Despite getting multiple explanations and examples, some people refuse to get why teachers have to do things in different ways for different kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is it, in this day and age, schools don't have class lessons that are ready to go for teachers? Why is everyone starting from scratch?

Because teaching isn't an automated factory-production process?

As a former teacher, I totally agree.

I taught for years--guess what? I never regurgitated lesson plans. Every year, I made new plans. I have not taught in several years and I understand that it is more regimented now than when I taught.

+1 also a former teacher

l

The art of teaching is one thing.

Lessons plans and curricula are another. You should in fact have been reusing the same plans and lessons. Once you have something in place that works and brings good results, there is no need to change it.

It was an analogy. An analogy won't show two things are exactly the same. But comparing the work of a teach to the work of a doctor is useful in some cases.

Here's a recent EdWeek article making the same analogy (to a different purpose, in this case talking about differentiation):

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/01/07/differentiation-doesnt-work.html?cmp=SOC-EDIT-FB

Do we expect an oncologist to be able to treat glaucoma? Do we expect a criminal prosecutor to be able to decipher patent law? Do we expect a concert pianist to be able to play the clarinet equally well? No, no, no. However, when the education of our nation's young people is at stake, we toss together into one classroom every possible learning strength and disability and expect a single teacher to be able to work academic miracles with every kid … as long as said teacher is willing to differentiate, of course.

And if the doctor's patients decide not to follow his or her advice, nobody blames the doctor.

Anonymous wrote:

Do you expect a doctor to completely rewrite treatment plans for every patient who tests positive for the flu? There are a limited number of symptoms: fever, chills, aches, vomiting.... and a limited number of likely treatment plans. Sure, the first patient might get a different treatment plan from the second, and maybe the third, but after that there's going to be a pattern of likely symptoms and likely treatment plans. The doctor doesn't need to completely rewrite the book for the 16th flu patient she sees.

False analogy. Teachers are not "treating sick patients" who have viruses or bacteria that are the same. We are not trying to get rid of a bug.

We are dealing with the mind, not the body. It's a much more complicated thing than what doctors are dealing with. It's like fingerprints . . . no two are alike and some are very, very different and some are pretty rare actually. The flu is very common.

And, the doctor doesn't usually treat 27 patients at the same time in the same room.

Do you expect a doctor to completely rewrite treatment plans for every patient who tests positive for the flu? There are a limited number of symptoms: fever, chills, aches, vomiting.... and a limited number of likely treatment plans. Sure, the first patient might get a different treatment plan from the second, and maybe the third, but after that there's going to be a pattern of likely symptoms and likely treatment plans. The doctor doesn't need to completely rewrite the book for the 16th flu patient she sees.

False analogy. Teachers are not "treating sick patients" who have viruses or bacteria that are the same. We are not trying to get rid of a bug.

We are dealing with the mind, not the body. It's a much more complicated thing than what doctors are dealing with. It's like fingerprints . . . no two are alike and some are very, very different and some are pretty rare actually. The flu is very common.

Anonymous wrote:


You must teach in a very homogenous situation if all you have to do is "tweak".



Kids aren't that different. And many of their differences you don't address in a lesson plan anyhow... you address with a behavior plan.

Huh? Are all of the adults you know not that different as well?

Anonymous wrote:

You must teach in a very homogenous situation if all you have to do is "tweak".

Kids aren't that different. And many of their differences you don't address in a lesson plan anyhow... you address with a behavior plan.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm the PP you are responding to -- I have taught elementary school for 17 years. This is my 18th year.

I do not need to rewrite all my lesson plans every year. Just as doctors do not need to alter treatment plans for every single patient. Yes, patients have different illnesses, but for the most part treatment for the same illness is routine. You may tweak a little here and there but... there are only so many symptoms, so many illnesses, and so many methods of treatment.

You must teach in a very homogenous situation if all you have to do is "tweak".

Do you expect a doctor to completely rewrite treatment plans for every patient who tests positive for the flu? There are a limited number of symptoms: fever, chills, aches, vomiting.... and a limited number of likely treatment plans. Sure, the first patient might get a different treatment plan from the second, and maybe the third, but after that there's going to be a pattern of likely symptoms and likely treatment plans. The doctor doesn't need to completely rewrite the book for the 16th flu patient she sees.

Anonymous wrote:
And, FWIW, when I taught K, there was no pressure like there is today--and, I still spent lots of time preparing. I know it takes more time now than it did then. The difference in preparing for K and in higher level grades, is that most of the prep needs to be done AT school.

Preparing for class is different from writing/changing/altering lesson plans, though. Preparing can be setting up your centers, making copies, counting out manipulatives. These things take time, even if you are repeating the same lessons every year.