Week 1

The Bigger Picture of Curriculum Mapping

Heidi Hayes Jacobs (from the Curriculum Mapping as a Strategic Planning Tool reading) emphasized that teachers often have only a “sketchy knowledge” of what others are teaching. How might mapping open up collaboration across classrooms, grades or departments?

With supportive leadership and a collaborative tone, curriculum mapping offers an opportunity to see the “big picture” of a student’s educational journey over time and inherently creates a mode of communication between teachers within a school. As Heidi Hayes Jacobs emphasizes, too often teachers have only a “sketchy knowledge” of what others are teaching, and mapping creates a structure to overcome this gap. When teachers share and compare their maps, they begin to notice how skills, concepts, and themes flow across grades and subjects, and strengthens collaboration between staff and even students.

Jacobs’ four phases of curriculum mapping — laying the foundation, launching the process, maintaining and sustaining the system, and engaging in advanced mapping tasks — help frame how this work can move from an abstract idea to a living, collaborative practice. At first, the focus is simply on understanding why mapping matters; over time, the process matures to include assessment data, literacy goals, and innovative future planning. This staged approach reminds us that mapping isn’t a quick fix but an ongoing professional habit that benefits both teachers and students.

Although time and resource constraints can make curriculum mapping feel like “one more thing” for teachers to manage, I think the investment will create efficiency and coherence over your teaching career. It ensures that students experience a more seamless and meaningful learning journey. As Jacobs suggests, curriculum mapping is not just about documents on a shelf — it is about fostering collaboration that keeps students at the centre of planning and instruction.

Understanding the Purpose of Curriculum Mapping

How does curriculum mapping shift our focus from what is taught to what students are able to do? In what ways can a map make the “invisible” parts of a program visible?

Curriculum mapping shifts the focus from what is taught to what students are able to do by making learning goals and competencies visible, not just lists of topics. The articles we read emphasize that mapping opens up collaboration by giving teachers a clearer view of the bigger picture of student learning across classrooms and grades. They also point out that the process is not static but adaptive, allowing educators to respond to student needs while still keeping long-term goals in sight. In this way, a curriculum map not only documents content coverage but also shows where students encounter, practice, and extend key skills, making learning more coherent and purposeful.

At the same time, a curriculum map brings to light the “invisible” parts of a program. It highlights patterns of overlap or redundancies, where skills are repeated without progression, and uncovers gaps where important competencies may be missing. It also surfaces cross-curricular connections — like research, critical thinking, or collaboration — that might otherwise stay implicit. I see pedagogy functioning in a similar way: not always visible in the moment, but shaping and supporting every learning experience. By making both these hidden patterns and foundational approaches explicit, curriculum mapping gives teachers a clearer picture of the student journey and helps ensure planning remains student-centred and intentional.

Week 4:

Developing a Personal Management System

In my future classroom, I want “management” to feel less like control and more like community care and community building. From my placements, I’ve learned that my strengths are building strong relationships and setting a positive tone. Where I sometimes feel less confident is in those moments where a quick correction of behaviour is necessary — because while a reactive response is sometimes appropriate I have less experience in the public sphere. I prefer prevention and proactive strategies, so those are the frameworks I tend to work in.

As a parent, I also recognize the challenge of separating parenting instincts from teaching practice. At home, I know my children deeply — their triggers, patterns, and needs — and my responses can sometimes be automatic, often coming from a place rooted in my own emotions; frustration, sometimes anger, but also joy, happiness and pure love. In the classroom, however, I will be mindful and will continue to be self-reflective as to not slip into those parental habits. Instead, I want to stay firmly grounded in practices that prioritize prevention, empathy, and shared responsibility.

I am trying to formulate a thoughtful collection of proactive strategies that will focus on clear routines, co-created agreements, and a culture of care. In my first practicum, the teacher had worked hard to create strong relationships with every student, so when correction was needed, it didn't fell judgmental or punitive, it felt supportive and unsurprising because class norms, boundaries and relationships had been so well established. Shalaby (2020) presents this by identifying management itself as a curriculum of care, teaching children how to live in community and take responsibility for one another. Eisenman, Edwards, and Cushman (2015) also emphasizes that management should enhance learning rather than simply control behaviour. Teaching Tolerance (2016) also highlights the importance of responding to the child rather than just the behaviour, recognizing that all actions are a form of communication. This means creating conditions where students feel safe, respected, and empowered — so that even when correction is needed, it happens in a way that sustains relationships, is respectful of student self-efficacy and keeps learning at the centre.

Eisenman, Edwards, and Cushman (2015) argue that classroom management should be understood as a tool for enhancing learning rather than controlling behaviour. I agree: the goal is not compliance, but creating conditions where students can focus, take risks, and grow. This begins with preventative strategies such as co-creating class agreements, greeting students at the door, and embedding routines that make expectations predictable and clear — which I can certainly attest to from experiences with my son who is neurodivergent.

Shalaby (2020) reframes management as a curriculum of care, where children practice fairness, empathy, and accountability. This reminds me that the way I respond to behaviour is also a lesson in itself — teaching students how communities function and how we care for one another. I want my classroom to be a place where students not only learn content but are given space to practice collective and individual responsibility, resolution, and support.

Instead of punitive responses my PMS will be restorative and responsive to student needs, like private conversations, reflective questions, and opportunities for students to make things right. Teaching Tolerance (2016) highlights the importance of seeing behaviour as communication, which helps me to respond to the child rather than just the incident. In this way, I see myself not as a manager of compliance but as a facilitator of community, echoing McKibben’s (2021) call for “discipline without punishment.” No one wants to revert back to an authoritarian classroom, a Foucauldian panopticon (Foucault, 1975) where the teacher is recapitulating principles of Discipline and Punishment through strict reactive, punitive practices. I want to create a classroom where students feel safe, respectful, and empowered — because when the environment is centred around the students and their experiences, authentic learning can happen.

Week 6:

1. My Own History With Assessment and How It Shaped Me

Growing up, I understood assessment mostly as something that had to happen rather than something that I was involved beyond silence and head down. No one ever explained the purpose of assessment as “gathering information to improve learning” (Growing Success, 2010). Because of that, I focused more on performance than on process. I tried to guess what teachers wanted instead of understanding the learning goals.

This came into sharp focus during my Grade 3/4 placement. My associate teacher—an excellent, intentional educator—still felt the pressure of EQAO. He wasn’t “teaching to the test,” but he was teaching test-taking as a skill. When I delivered my “Who Would Win?” data unit, he asked me to end with a traditional summative assessment: desks apart, pencils only, timed, quiet. This was partially to help students prepare for the structure of EQAO, but I felt the way it instantly changed the tone in the room. It reminded me of my own experiences where assessment felt like an event, not something embedded in learning.

Reflecting on this now, and after reading Volante, DeLuca & Klinger’s work on assessment in the age of AI (2023), I see how narrow, test-centric views of assessment can limit both teaching and learning. They argue that modern assessment should emphasize authenticity, collaboration, and clarity of purpose—especially now that AI tools can support or distort the product itself. In school, I never experienced that clarity. I only learned to “play school” well.

The Week 6 videos reinforced this. One teacher emphasized that a product alone is not always a valid representation of learning and that conversations often reveal what a worksheet cannot. Lisa, in the EduGAINS, pointed out that “a product isn’t a true representation of their knowledge” if students can’t express their thinking in that format. Looking back, I think that was me. I often understood more than I could demonstrate in writing, but no one ever triangulated the evidence.

This is why, as a learner, I focused so heavily on grades—they were the only visible part of the process. Admittedly, that is still a focus in this program, as much as I try not to care, it is so entrenched in my it's hard not to. My main focus is the learning, I want to walk away with as much knowledge and practical information as I possibly can and that doesn't always align with a specific grade, sometimes I think this program would be more pedagogically beneficial to be a pass-fail model.

To the top!

2. Helping My Students Understand the Purpose of Assessment

Moving forward as a teacher, especially with students in Grades 3+, I want to be transparent about assessment in a way I never experienced.

Students deserve to understand what assessment is, why we do it, and how it helps them grow.

a) Making the purpose crystal clear

Early in the year, I want to explicitly teach that assessment is part of learning, not something separate (Growing Success, 2010). I will explain the three sources of evidence—conversations, observations, and products—because these are the cornerstones of reliable assessment (EduGAINS, “Gathering Evidence”). When students see that I value their thinking, their attempts, their strategies, and their talk—not just the final polished artifact—they can shift away from perfectionism and toward growth.

b) Showing them how I gather evidence

Instead of assessment happening invisibly, I want students to understand why I take notes during a conference, why I observe them solving a problem on the carpet, or why I ask them to explain their strategy aloud. Teacher 4 in the EduGAINS clip talked about trusting students and having students trust that we use their best evidence; I want that to be foundational in my classroom culture.

c) Using rich, authentic, future-proof tasks

Week 6 highlighted that rich tasks promote deeper learning and allow students to demonstrate understanding in multiple ways. Harris (2022) argues that rich tasks prepare learners for a rapidly changing digital world, and Arubusson et al. (2014) note that they inherently accommodate diverse strengths.

In my own practice, a task like the “Who Would Win?” data project or a collaborative STEM challenge lets me gather evidence through multiple pathways to show their learning.

Students can:

talk about their thinking
sketch models
negotiate with peers
revise based on feedback
present in a format of their choice

This increases both validity and reliability because it reflects the full range of what they know and can do.

d) Teaching students to navigate AI ethically and transparently

Volante, DeLuca & Klinger (2023) emphasize that in the age of AI, teachers need to be explicit about learning goals and the role AI can or cannot play. I want to help students understand that AI can support brainstorming or organizing ideas, but the learning is still theirs,. My generation has the fortune of having developed research, writing and critical thinking skills prior to the inception of AI and I want to be sure to help develop those skills in my students. By co-creating criteria and engaging in feedback cycles, students can see how their thinking—not the tool—demonstrates their growth, and as a teacher, using assessments that circumvent some of the ways to use AI unethically.

e) Bringing students into the assessment process

When students help build success criteria, co-construct rubrics, or engage in peer and self-assessment, the purpose of assessment becomes visible and meaningful. As Teacher 3 noted in the Week 6 video, when students help create the criteria, “the quality of work is a lot higher…they’re more engaged.”

It adds a level of complexity to the process of creating rubrics, and assessments, but the student-centred learning is worth it. When students understand the why behind a task, it creates agency and it becomes a partnership.

f) A culture of trust and care

Ultimately, assessment is relational. If students believe I am in their corner—that my job is their well-being and success—they are more willing to take risks. Like Etta and Elliott at home, when kids understand why something matters, they try differently.

My goal is to build a classroom where assessment is not performative but:

transparent
collaborative
growth-oriented
and grounded in evidence

WEEK 8: Parents as partners

Q1:

How might your prior experiences influence your own perceptions about parent engagement to help their children succeed? How will you work on challenging your own assumptions about parents as partners?

My thinking around parent engagement has been shaped by a mix of personal, professional, and practicum experiences, but my most recent placements have had the greatest influence because they showed, in real time, how differently families participate in their child’s learning, and how easy it is for schools to overlook the strengths and challenges that families carry with them. In the Grade 3/4 classroom, for example, some parents emailed frequently, some stayed quietly supportive in the background, and others were present in ways that didn’t always fit the traditional markers of “involvement,” and it reinforced something I strongly believe—families demonstrate care in different ways, often shaped by work schedules, language, neurodivergence, trauma histories, cultural norms, or prior negative school experiences.

This week’s readings encouraged me to interrogate the assumptions educators sometimes bring into these relationships, particularly the idea that visible involvement equates to stronger partnership. Resources like Parents in Partnership (2010) and the OTF modules push back on that, reminding educators that parent engagement is as much about access and comfort as it is about willingness, and that a lack of response is not the same as a lack of care. Shared Solutions added another layer by emphasizing that authentic collaboration begins with curiosity—asking questions, learning a family’s story, and understanding that each parent arrives with their own experiences of schooling, some of which may have been deeply inequitable or harmful.

Challenging my own assumptions means approaching every family with a stance of respect, assuming positive intent, and building communication systems that acknowledge structural barriers rather than blaming parents for circumstances beyond their control. It is not enough to “invite” families into partnership; teachers must design environments and communication pathways that make it possible for them to participate in ways that are sustainable and dignified.

Q2:

What are some common themes, tips, and strategies you noted/noticed as you read/viewed/reviewed this week’s readings/resources?

Although the documents this week came from different organizations and served different purposes, the themes threaded through them were remarkably consistent. Bosch & Bosch (2015), the OTF relationship-building modules, OECTA’s guidance on positive communication, and Shared Solutions all point toward practical, calm, human-centered communication—communication that is proactive rather than reactive, relational rather than transactional, and rooted in a genuine commitment to collaboration.

A) Start the relationship early, and with intention.
Bosch & Bosch highlight how simple gestures (welcome letters, early-year surveys, informal check-ins) can lay the groundwork for trust before any provocatively. These relationships with the families establish the classroom a space where their voice matters, and where communication is available, accessible and valued.

B) Keep communication predictable and clear.
The OTF modules repeatedly emphasize that communication is most effective when it is concise, accessible, and structured, which reduces anxiety for parents who may already feel overwhelmed by school systems. Predictability creates safety.

C) Listen deeply before responding.
Both OECTA and Shared Solutions place listening at the centre of conflict resolution, and I can attest to that point with my experience in the service industry, the library and in school settings. When parents feel heard and valued, many situations de-escalate naturally, because listening communicates respect, and respect communicates safety.

D) Conflict is expected, not a sign that something has gone wrong.
Shared Solutions reframes conflict as part of collaborative work, not a failure of relationship. The emphasis on shared problem-solving, non-threatening language, and student-centred thinking offers a framework that works in the social climate of today's schools and is a restorative practice.

E) Bias must be acknowledged and countered.
The Bias-Free Progressive Discipline document was a crucial reminder that teachers bring their own histories, assumptions, and cultural lenses into every conversation. Recognizing how race, class, gender, disability, and other identities shape interactions is essential in building equitable partnerships with families who may have experienced marginalization within school systems. My first AT gave a master class in this, his neutrality and understanding of what he brought into the classroom was excellent.

Across all the readings, the many many readings, there was an underlying message consistently: healthy parent partnerships take time, intentionality, humility, and a willingness to understand families on their own terms. I am quite excited about this part of the job.

Q3:

After reading/viewing/reviewing this week's materials, what areas do you feel capable and/or confident in? In what areas will you require further development? How will you work to develop your identified areas further?

One of the areas I feel most grounded in, and which this week’s readings affirmed rather than introduced, is the ability to build trust with families through steady, thoughtful communication, and through active listening that is genuinely attentive rather than performative. Parent–teacher relationships can be complicated, sometimes tense, sometimes shaped by unknown histories, but I have always tried to listen carefully to what is said and try to hear what is not said, noticing tone and body language. It's important to respond in such a way that makes people feel at ease, and not rehearsed,—a natural, thoughtful, and attentive give and take. OECTA’s emphasis on calm, clear interactions, and suggestions from Shared Solutions on listening inform teachers to listen before reacting: when someone feels heard, conflict is less likely to escalate, and when communication is predictable and grounded in mutual respect, the relationship can benefit the student, their family and yourself as a teacher.

I also feel confident in approaching parent–school interactions through an equity lens, which, for me, means assuming competence and care, recognizing systemic barriers without blaming families for them, and shaping communication practices that are flexible enough to include those who may not have the time, language, or emotional capacity to engage in the more traditional ways. My background in public service community work, along with my own experiences as a parent, reinforce how important tone, timing, clarity, and emotional presence can be, especially when discussing a child’s challenges or successes. I hope these previous experiences will be successful in embody what Bosch & Bosch suggest, the OTF modules, and the Bias-Free Progressive Discipline resource, all of which frame communication not as a single skill, but as an ecosystem of relational practices.

At the same time, there are areas where I want to continue deepening my practice, especially around navigating conversations that begin already heightened—those moments when a parent arrives overwhelmed or defensive or carrying concerns that have built up over time, and where the emotional temperature of the room requires an even more precise balance of empathy, firmness, and clarity. Although I am comfortable de-escalating most situations, and I can stay calm even when someone else is not, I want to continue strengthening my confidence in situations where the stakes are higher or where the conversation touches on safety, legal obligations, or systemic issues that extend beyond the classroom teacher’s sphere of control.

Another area I want to refine is the consistency of my documentation and using multiple was communication to parents, students and staff. Bosch & Bosch offer practical templates, and the OTF modules highlight the importance of clear communication records, and while I value organization, I know that developing a sustainable, repeatable system will take time, experimentation, and mentorship. I also want to become more confident facilitating more formal, multi-party meetings—IEP reviews, collaborative problem-solving conversations, or Shared Solutions–style discussions—because these require a nuanced understanding of roles, responsibilities, and processes, which are all

relatively new to me.

This practicum I am going to focus on recording assessments in different ways, be more involved in conflict resolution and try to get a feel for classroom management in a proactive way. I am going to try to involve parents in this process as much as possible (as much as can be in a 4 week placement, but even if it is just through conservations with my AT about her experiences). These are skills that evolve with practice, and I am committed to developing them with the same care and intentionality that I bring to my work with students.