Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

As teachers, we are called to education because that is not what we do, it is who we are.

We talk of closing achievement gaps; disaggregate data, progressing monitoring, pedagogy and
the like. I have attempted to address this issue in my classroom through blended learning. I
whole heartedly believe in leveraging technology (using student strength and interest) to propel
their learning. In this course we have studied the history of curriculum design, implementation,
and learning theories. The goal is to use this information in order to develop and implement the
best practices for our students. After much reflection, I can admit that my instructional
philosophy is also blended. I believe not only in constructivism, but also humanism and some
aspects of behaviorism. In my sphere of influence, I attempt to educate the whole child.

As an educator, I have been aware of discrepancies in educational opportunities and


achievement in certain populations. These demographics have consisted of special education,
504, gender, and (yes) race/ ethnicity. We call these kids at-risk youth. I will admit I have
advocated heavily for these students. However, until this course I was completely unaware that,
although I am dedicated to ensuring/advocating for equality in education and allowing students
to experience our belief in them; my vocabulary contributed to the achievement problem of
labeling bias. What does this mean exactly? According to Dr. Victor Rios in his TEDx Talk:
From 'at-risk' to 'at-promise': supporting teens to overcome adversity, calling students at- risk
inherently creates a negative connotation and creates the perception that our youth are incapable
of being successful. Instead we should use language that supports our belief that they have
promise. This in-turn will create empowerment through relationship building. You may be
asking yourself: What does this have to do with Curriculum Design and Practice?. My answer
is emphatically: Everything!

Our text describes the curriculum implementation model OvercomingResistance-to-


Change Model (ORC) (Orstein & Hunkins, 2013. P. 228). Orstein and Hunkins state that Neal
Gross ORC model directly relates to student impact in Stage four. At this stage a teacher is
concerned with how students, colleagues, and communities are affected. This top down
approach attempts to implement innovation or change in order to address educational
improvement (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2013). If we use this model and directly relate it to student
motivation for achievement, we must address these labeling biases in order to iterate
perceptions and springboard students self-fulling prophecies.

Вам также может понравиться