Message from jreynolds

[Anonymous]

Well, I agree with you on the creativity. However, I had a principal that was very "look over your shoulder" my first year of teaching, and we HAD to have everything relate to the standards... I could get away with it if it was something that took five minutes, but if it lasted longer than that he'd get down people's throats. And being an intern.... well... it's not easy to keep your job if you don't follow the rules.

I also agree that creativity and engagement are incredibly important. They are possibly the most important aspects of each lesson plan. You can follow the standards more closely and also be creative. Using the textbook is useful if you're trying to teach reading (which my regular history students need so very badly, and so I do incorporate it) but when really getting into content and therefore the majority of my lessons are directly related to the standards but in a fun and creative way. Creative writing, making up plays, group projects galore, they can still have fun. Even games, though I usually use study games, though I was working on finding a way to implement a "trading" game. However, because I'm held to the tests as my standard, I stick to the standards. There are somethings they need to know to know the standards, and those I understand, and some you can fit in because they actually fit in the frameworks... however, in general, I always feel like I have to have a lawyer like argument due to the principal I had my first year. I guess it's just the way I started out. That's why I ask, when my principal leans over and says, "why?", how do I justify that? I am certain that I am not the only one in this position.... so I thought it was appropriate to ask it in the forum so others to justify it and get to use it.