It all starts with vision — if we have a vision we have goals that lead to that vision — we can tie every decision we make to that vision and hold it as a litmus test. I am not a fan of trying to think about end goals too far in advance — like the college and career ready (I lean towards life ready). When we create a systematic vision — work/learning environments change, materials change, etc. (kind of what I was getting at in the graphic of the article).
For elementary kids what I see progressive organizations striving for in schools is engagement in authentic learning, at the middle level is is engagement in authentic learning and better understadning, use, and assessment of key skills that give greater choice and voice, at the upper levels it is engagement, authentic learning, real world experiences. For adults it is engagement, identifying with vision, unleaerning, and more.
I am working on an article right now (just noodling) along the lines of “curriculum can’t save you” because I see a lot of districts that are trying to communicate the lowest common denominator in practice through curriculum adoption. I typically advocate for changing assessments and student work (not moving change through curriculum) — those things can show progress towards vision for the system, for teachers, for learners. If that makes sense… I just hate to see some teachers that are really focused on engagement and authenticity thinking that is “just innovation” and I don’t like to see teachers at any level think that just because they are using a curriculum they are getting the job done in upholding progress towards a vision…
