Trust the Spiral

Originally published here on March 2, 2008.

I was introduced to the idea of a spiral curriculum almost three years ago now when the University of Chicago's Everyday Math curriculum was put in place in McDowell County. Like almost all the other teachers, I hated it for the first three or four weeks. Some teachers hated it longer than that, but I came to appreciate the new emphasis it brought to math and how math seemed to permeated much of the school day. I like math. After all, we all use math everyday...

The concepts inherent in a spiral curriculum are simple.

• Learners usually need repeated exposure to new ideas before they fully "get" them.


• Everyone learns at their own rate, in their own way (and isn't that a very Constructivist idea!?!).


• There's no sense trying to get students to swallow a whole new idea now, all at once; which, translated, means you don't always have to teach to mastery.


• If this or that student doesn't get something this time, don't worry. They'll get it (or at least come closer to getting it) next time.

There will be a next time. The concept of a spiral curriculum is one in which things get come back to.

You teach in something like a circle. We'll work on regrouping in the first week of November. We'll do it again in the second week of December. And again in the third week of January, the first week of March and the middle of April. We'll sneak a day of it in a few other times and mention it in passing a few times beyond that. It will stick in almost every child's mind. Some will master it a year ahead of time, most will begin to understand it when it's introduced and master it at grade level, and for a few we'll lay a foundation for future success and they'll understand it eventually (though a year or two later than we would have liked).

It was hard to stop always teaching to mastery. But I like the spiral now.

Of course the problem we face now is that the philosophy of the spiral curriculum doesn't really line up with the accountability provisions of No Child Left Behind. As an educational interventionist, I have no problem understanding that some kids will take an extra year or two to "get it" - but that they probably will eventually "get it." The spiral will come back around and pick those last kids up. You should trust the spiral to do that.

But in a few years the accountability provisions of NCLB will mean that schools don't make AYP because a handful of kids haven't come to their spot on the spiral yet. The question then will be this: "How do we make the law reflect what we actually believe about learning?"

My only answer in this election year is that if helps to vote...