After listening to George speak, I have a new and deeper understanding of what innovation is. Innovation is using new and creative practices that meet the needs of students today, and prepares them for their needs in the future. I often think about whether or not what I am teaching students really matters? I teach in the inner city, and many of my students experience tremendous struggles at home. Getting my students engaged in learning can be difficult when so often they come to school tired, hungry, and emotionally exhausted. Yet, I am mandated to teach students about topics like monerans, protists and fungi in the science curriculum? Or topics, such as confederation. Is that what these students really need? Is knowing the definition of a protist essential to their future? Probably not. Focusing on teaching both social and academic skills, like researching online or collaborating with others is more important; however, I do not believe that the Manitoba curriculum reflects this. Perhaps a more innovative curriculum could help teachers adopt more innovative practices? Yes, some might argue, that we do have “cluster 0” that indicates the skills we should be teaching, but cluster 0 is only one cluster, in addition to all the other clusters, general outcomes and specific outcomes. I feel that the way the curriculum is formatted, does not really highlight the importance of teaching skills.

Anna Choy
Shaughnessy Park
Cluster 1971

My first session with George really made me reflect on my own teaching practices. He made a few arguments during his presentation that really stuck with me. The first being that we tend to teach how we are taught, but not necessarily what is the best for our students. I connected this idea to what Jennifer Katz (Education professor at University of Manitoba and author of Teaching to Diversity) spoke about during one of her presentations. She asserted that we do not expect any other profession to engage in older or outdated practices just because the professionals are use to operating in a specific way. Take a doctor for instance. Knowledge in medicine and science has grown tremendously. When new and better medications come out, we expect doctors to use those medications. It is not acceptable for doctors to keep using the older and less effective medicine just because that is what they are use to. Just like a doctor, teachers need to adapt, change, and or update their materials, lessons, and teaching styles to meet the needs of the current generation and generations of students to come. This means accepting that we must continuously be learning and changing. This directly links to the second statement that impacted me. George strongly asserted that teachers need to stay current and adopt current practices, including the use of technology, in order to be relevant. If we do not adapt and change to our environment, then teachers will become “extinct” so to speak. Although this statement originally made me uncomfortable, for I felt that my job was threatened, I understood the importance of what he is saying. I try my best to be as innovative as possible, as most teachers do; however, time, lack of money, lack of training, lack of technology, and lack of support from colleagues and/or administration are all barriers to innovative classrooms.

Anna Choy
Shaughnessy Park
Cluster 1971