This is the most terrifying thing that I’ve read in a while:
If the lesson was a train, then it pulled slowly out of the station, flew off the rails, crashed into something big and destructive and flammable, and burst into flames. At least there was no ambiguity. It was undeniably horrible.
When I realized the depravity of our situation, I called for everyone’s attention in order to make an announcement:
Hey guys, this isn’t going well, and it’s my fault. I didn’t prepare for this lesson as well as I should have. I want everyone to stop working on the handout and find something else to do. You can work on something from another class or just relax and chat with your friends. I’m going to sit down to rewrite the handout. If I can fix what’s broken in 5 or 10 minutes, we may resume. If not, we’ll pick things up tomorrow.
For one, it’s certainly clear that he lightened the tone in his new version, adding a bit more expository support and generally giving kids a bit more space to work. The instructions are dished out in smaller chunks. He also added a whole prequel to the Key Curriculum worksheet that checks in on their ability to solve systems graphically in Cartesian coordinates. He also added support questions to flesh out the original handout.
What are Michael’s assumptions? What were the curriculum developer’s assumptions? Why did they diverge?