IRPs: the good and the bad.

BC's Integrated Resource Package, commonly referred to as the IRP is a helpful resource, but if I choose to follow it to a 't' it is quite possible that I will get lost in the rules and needs of the BC curriculum instead of responding to the needs of my students.  Atwell says we need to "let school reflect the nature of the kids". I could not agree more. So I ask myself, does the IRP truly service the students or does it merely service the teacher? 

I think the principles of learning, and the key concepts outlined in the IRP: oral language, reading and viewing, and writing and representing, as well as the focuses of each concept: purpose, strategies, thinking and features, are great guidelines in regards to new teachers trying to organize their ELA lesson plans. I don't feel as confident about the PLO's... "prescribed learning outcomes are mandated by the School Act; they are legally required, not optional". To put in perspective, there are twenty-two pages of PLO's for grade 8 students in ELA, which highlight the nitty-gritty things about English Language Arts, and I don't understand why it needs to be broken down in such a fashion. The thing is, IRPs are too long, and as a new teacher, the enormous booklet of information and required curriculum to get through per class is a tad bit intimidating. It would be better if they were shorter. I also can't seem to ignore the out-datedness of the IRP. This year we celebrate 2012, yet the ELA IRP is from 2007. Should teachers really be basing their lessons on resources from five years ago?  On the other hand, I think the cross-over elements in the IRPs are effective because they create a foundation for progression and a sense of continuity from grades 7 through 12, putting everybody on the same page. Progression and continuity in learning between grades enables students to acquire skills and continue to develop their skills, such as being effective speakers in public discourse.

 The article by Robert E. Probst argues the need for teaching students to take responsibility for their own discourse. He is right; in my eyes the need for authentic speech is so important, because that is what is judged in our world outside the classroom. Students today learn in a variety of ways and respond to a variety of teaching approaches. Atwell suggests that "middle school students look at school for what matters in life/not as the place to get ready for what matters in life. They come to school to work out their social needs." If this is the case then ELA needs to reflect what matters to the students. Students will learn when they feel that what matters to them is listened to, and when they feel their is a reason,a purpose to overcome what challenges them in school. I know that my classroom will be full of students who might all have opinions and ideas burning inside of them but the ability to express these ideas and opinions in an effective and educated manner isn't quite yet accessible. They need help in fostering this skill. Good writing, active reading, confident speaking, and critical thinking, are fundamental elements of ELA. Good teachers bring out these skills in students. They find a way to instill for their students reason to care about what they have to say, their ideas and opinions. These teachers bring undivided attention to what adolescents feel is important. Not all kids have the same opinion, the same growing-up experience, learning abilities and cultural backgrounds. All in all, not every kid is cut from the same cloth, so how as teachers are we supposed to follow a cookie-cutter outline? I think it is the IRPs "guideline" characteristics that make them valuable to teachers starting out as opposed to their mandatory cookie-cutter rules that hinder new teachers.