Sort of a debate we have in my department that ends in detente: difficultly of curriculum.

I teach junior level regular ed history.

I did an activity on data and graphing. We were comparing statistics between whites and minorities.

They were to graph, do a mathematical comparison, conclude based on the data point, then find a few comorbid factors.

So graph, the white to black population is 1:6 but the percentage of whites to blacks in prison is pretty equal, blacks are over represented in prison by 6x.

Then taking other factors they were supposed to correlate one data point to another. Blacks are more likely to be searched which may contribute to the increase in prison population.

A lot of moving parts, but I scaffolded, sentence framed, etc.

Kids didn't do so well, mainly because of a skill gaps.

So the debate really centered on the difficulty. One teacher does assignments that are easily below the skill set I demand of her students. Her rationale is that kids aren't capable to reach a level above what she sets her work at.

I argue that curriculum should be out of reach but kids should be given a boost. If they miss, they miss. But we shouldn't level down the aggregate because kids fail.

I proctored our standardized test for math - because history has a singular grade level. Those math questions were way out of their reach. Beyond what I demanded above.

So we reached an impasse, but I'd like some perspective.

Submitted June 06, 2017 at 10:33AM by anonoman925 http://ift.tt/2rQVdGL