Attack! 90 A threshold timetable Part 4

Welcome to ATTACK! 

ATTACK! is a two-page occasional publication giving attention to the curriculum – the holistic curriculum.screen-shot-2016-11-07-at-1-44-50-pm

ATTACK! is for you, also to introduce to your colleagues. Each issue will be restricted to two pages. A cover graphic for a file or folder to store ATTACK! issues is available.

Most of ATTACK! will be concerned with the holistic curriculum which, if acted on, is a fundamental way to undermine the present undemocratic education system. Don’t be discouraged if opportunities to teach holistically are limited, do your best, be a guardian, and act as a witness to this culturally significant and inspiring way of teaching and learning.

To get in touch for comment, questions, and the ATTACK! issues to be sent to you personally:  ksmythe@wave.co.nz

Attack! 90 A threshold timetable Part 4

Click here to download

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Attack and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Attack! 90 A threshold timetable Part 4

  1. This is a fabulous summary of my favourite way to teach. Thank you for keeping it alive.

  2. Kelvin says:

    Thank-you for keeping my morale up by commenting. The threshold timetable needs to be complemented by reading the booklets to show how the threshold ideas blended with those of Sue and Chris – it brings it all together.

  3. spot on – thanks for the rev up

  4. Catherine says:

    Hi Kelvin. I have enjoyed reading this series of articles and in particular the accounts of the two teachers’ programmes. The term “threshold timetable” is new to me and I wondered why it has this name. Also, what would you see as the key differences between this and typical learning programmes in primary schools these days?

  5. Kelvin says:

    I called it threshold because I wanted to entice teachers over it, then once in, quickly extend it, heading in many directions. The key difference is that teachers today don’t feel free to follow their star. Programmes seem frozen, the intention and hope is there, but not the opportunity. In Sue’s programme it was the intensity of keeping at the children in the nicest possible way – a characteristic of programmes like Sue’s is that all children learn to read and write – I don’t think I’ve ever seen a failure. In Chris’s, the children learn to take control of their learning, and enjoy learning – important to learning in general but to succeeding at secondary in particular.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s