The True Cost of ‘Covering’ the Curriculum: Why Re-Teaching Is Killing Your Time
As said in a previous post this week, it’s one of the most frustrating feelings in education: stepping in to cover a class, only to realize you have to re-teach a core concept that was barely covered, or worse, taught incorrectly.
I’ve had to do it dozens of times, whether taking over a class at my own institute or subbing at others. You look at the curriculum, see the gap—say, the pronunciation of ride, rode, ridden (this teacher pronounced it rahiden)—and realize the previous instruction was flawed, often given by a well-meaning but non-degree teacher.
The consequence? The time tax is transferred directly to you.
That annoyance, it’s justified. Time that should be spent on engaging, advanced material is being wasted fixing fundamental mistakes in pronunciation or basic grammar. It makes you feel like you are fighting against the current every single day.
It takes a toll on your motivation to teach or even re-teach when you’re given clear instructions on the class your subbing. Go – Teach pg. 60 – Give out homework- If a student is lost, tell them next week their teacher will come back a do a review.
The most destructive piece of advice I ever received was the mantra of the overworked: “You can’t go against the clock of the year schedule. If a student doesn’t understand, they can take extra classes.”
This is scientifically and ethically wrong. It’s an instruction for failure. It treats the student’s lack of understanding as a personal fault, when it’s truly a methodological failure of the curriculum.
If a school cant account for students learning abilities, how can it plan accordingly to fit all content in one year? They’re planning around the perfect student…and it shows.
If your lesson plan is structured for the brain—using Retrieval Practice and Micro-Chunking—you eliminate the silly, frustrating reasons for re-teaching altogether. You reclaim your energy and ensure your professional effort isn’t wasted.