# When delivering a layered curriculum to students, what assumptions about them and their skills are safe to make?When delivering a layered curriculum to students, what assumptions about them and...

When delivering a layered curriculum to students, what assumptions about them and their skills are safe to make?

*print*Print*list*Cite

In terms of assumptions to make about students in a layered curriculum, I believe that the climate and the expectations you have established in your classroom will assist in making safe assumptions. If the layered curriculum is steeped in a climate that allows students to drive the curriculum in terms of it being student centered, I think that students would be able to determine their level of comfort with the given topic in the curriculum. I would think that the assumption the teacher is going to make is that their role is to be an advocate for all students to succeed. For example if a student has elected to remain in the "C" domain, the teacher can advocate for the student to take a risk and try for a "B" domain, higher up on the graduated difficulty spectrum. For students who are at "B" level, making the asumption to move to an "A" level would be something that can be done. All of this underscores the fundamental idea that in a layered curriculum setting, the assumption that all stakeholders make is that progress and improvement must be evident and present in all students. The teacher makes this assumption. Even the students who are the "C" level, the assumption is, how can those students demonstrate greater competancy than before? This is an assumption that is safe to make and encouraged in the layered curriculum setting.

Thanks for your insight! What has been your (or anyone's out there!) experience and success at moving those reluctant learners from the C level to the B and eventually A level work?

I think that the critical element in addressing all reluctant learners is to convince them that your will to see them succeed is stronger than their fear of their own success. It's strange to articulate, but I believe that reluctant learners are only so because success has been harder for them to achieve. As teachers, we cannot undo their past. Yet, we can force them to reconfigure the present and future with our commitment to be there and continue to advocate for them. If we can appeal to our "C" level students, and all of our reluctant students, that we will be there, advocate, modify, and adapt whatever need to be done in order to see them move a level into a higher notion of success, they might become more receptive to the idea of advancing. Some of them might not take the bait because the learned helplessness is deeply ingrained. Yet, we have to maintain the consistent message to them, especially these particular students, that our actions are concurrent with our message that we are not going anywhere, and should they take one step to us, we will take ten to them. This is where the teaching strands of rapport, personal regard, and the classroom environment become critical.

In terms of assumptions to make about students in a layered curriculum, I believe that the climate and the expectations you have established in your classroom will assist in making safe assumptions. If the layered curriculum is steeped in a climate that allows students to drive the curriculum in terms of it being student centered, I think that students would be able to determine their level of comfort with the given topic in the curriculum. I would think that the assumption the teacher is going to make is that their role is to be an advocate for all students to succeed. For example if a student has elected to remain in the "C" domain, the teacher can advocate for the student to take a risk and try for a "B" domain, higher up on the graduated difficulty spectrum. For students who are at "B" level, making the asumption to move to an "A" level would be something that can be done. All of this underscores the fundamental idea that in a layered curriculum setting, the assumption that all stakeholders make is that progress and improvement must be evident and present in all students. The teacher makes this assumption. Even the students who are the "C" level, the assumption is, how can those students demonstrate greater competancy than before? This is an assumption that is safe to make and encouraged in the layered curriculum setting.

In terms of assumptions to make about students in a layered curriculum, I believe that the climate and the expectations you have established in your classroom will assist in making safe assumptions. If the layered curriculum is steeped in a climate that allows students to drive the curriculum in terms of it being student centered, I think that students would be able to determine their level of comfort with the given topic in the curriculum. I would think that the assumption the teacher is going to make is that their role is to be an advocate for all students to succeed. For example if a student has elected to remain in the "C" domain, the teacher can advocate for the student to take a risk and try for a "B" domain, higher up on the graduated difficulty spectrum. For students who are at "B" level, making the asumption to move to an "A" level would be something that can be done. All of this underscores the fundamental idea that in a layered curriculum setting, the assumption that all stakeholders make is that progress and improvement must be evident and present in all students. The teacher makes this assumption. Even the students who are the "C" level, the assumption is, how can those students demonstrate greater competancy than before? This is an assumption that is safe to make and encouraged in the layered curriculum setting.

Thanks for your insight! What has been your (or anyone's out there!) experience and success at moving those reluctant learners from the C level to the B and eventually A level work?