Several years ago, I realized that the day of the week that Christmas falls on has a large impact on the school calendar for the year. It can change the balance of weeks between the two semesters, adding a week or so to one while taking it away from the other. This may not initially seem like a big change, but it can affect how units, modules, or chapters are laid out for the year. This is especially true for middle and high schools that schedule semester exams. The preparation for and taking of these exams can take off another week. That means there can be a variance of up to two weeks from year to year just based on this one variable.
This example is a bit extreme, but there are several variables in the school calendar that can affect how the plan for the year is implemented. Changes in the dates for testing (state-mandated or achievement) can have a large impact on how to make the best use of time for preparation. Extracurriculars such as arts or athletics can make certain days or weeks less productive than they might otherwise be. Less predictable disruptions such as emergency drills, technology disruptions, weather days, and clusters of diseases like flu or strep only make things worse. I call this pattern of available but broken-up time the shape of the year. Each year has its own shape.
Teachers have many tools that can help them plan their lessons and assessments for the year. Textbooks and curriculums tend to come with some sort of implementation guide, often called pacing guides or scopes and sequences. Some schools provide versions of these documents that have been modified to fit the school’s schedule and the community it serves. Districts or charter networks sometimes try to create plans for all the schools in their systems to follow. While these documents might be better-aligned to calendars and communities than the textbook or curriculum versions, they cannot address the most important variables in the flow of the year: the specific students and the teacher.
Some classes are overall stronger and some are weaker. Some come with sufficient precursor knowledge, others need more support and reteaching. The presence of just one good question-asker or a solid academic role model can change the dynamics of a class. Some classes will fit nicely into the time-frames of the planning documents. Others may need more time. Occasionally a class needs less time which brings its own set of challenges.
The experience of the teacher also plays a role in this. The more experience a teacher has guiding students through the learning goals, the better the teacher can anticipate and effectively address student needs. The teacher learns how to get the most out of the existing materials and how to adapt and supplement them if needed. Over time, the teacher accumulates experience with students at different levels and with variations on time constraints and is better-prepared for a wider variety of students. In other words, every year is different. The combination of students, teacher, and curriculum plays out just a little differently each year. This is why mechanical solutions are not enough. They cannot take into account all these variables.
The Core Teaching Framework calls the planning and instruction practice “Navigating Instructional Flow”. Its icon is the compass because the teacher is trying to figure out the best way to get the class to and through the various learning goals for the year. The professional judgment of the teacher is the best guide for the flow of instruction. Informed by assessment and experience, the teacher is the one who is in the best position to move to and through learning goals, making sure that available time is put to best use.
I taught a two-module unit on probability in 7th grade math for several years. The modules had a logical structure. The first was on experimental probability (probability determined by collecting real data) and theoretical probability (probability based on there being an equal chance of all possibilities happening). There were similar exercises in each module and students would often get them confused when we reviewed for assessments. The activities for the two lessons could also be completed in one day. I reorganized the lessons covering both modules at the same time. This allowed us to review the differences between experimental and theoretical probability each day. The teacher’s judgment had made a small change to the lesson flow for the benefit of student learning.
Making two modules into one also had the effect of losing a quiz grade. I needed a replacement. One of the learning goals for probability was to create a simulation to model a system using probability. The perfect example was right in front of us. A few years earlier I had moved away from grading homework because it was causing too much stress for the students and was not an efficient way for them to get feedback on their learning. Instead, we would go over their homework and I would take any questions. They would then do an activity I called a check-in. It was usually 5 multiple-choice questions based on their practice. It was quick and easy for me to collect, grade, and return. Being multiple-choice, however, it was tempting to students to rely on guessing.
I created an activity where they modeled the probability of passing the check-in by guessing randomly. It met the learning goal for modeling and was relevant to their experience. It gave me a different kind of assessment to make a more complete picture of student learning. Reducing the time spent on probability created more time for the modules on statistics which included a project in which students created a survey about their own interests and analyzed the data. Some years, we were able to do the full survey project. Other years, even with the time gained from compressing the probability modules, we had to skip the gathering part and use data that had been collected in other years. Every year is different, making every teaching and learning journey unique. It is the professional judgment of the teacher that can best guide the students through it.