Come, Follow Me: New Youth Curriculum.

[LA Ute]

I'd go farther and say that the same studies that show that just as some school teachers are amazingly successful regardless of class size, curricular constraints, or administrative support--while the majority of their peers just muddle through--would also be borne out in church teaching settings. Get great teachers and you'll get great results. You can tinker with manuals and curricula all you want, but you're really just laying out doilies as the Titanic goes down.

[Pheidippides]

I believe it is just for the youth SS classes.

Confirmed. In a bit of panic I just checked the curriculum guide for 2013 - not applicable to me.

[Pheidippides]

So maybe he was confused. I guess the truth of the matter will work it's way out in the next couple of weeks.

I was getting a little excited about putting my own lessons together without a manual.

Keep your excitement! I've been doing this for years.

(I loosely take the topic from the manual, but usually little else).

[Moliere]

I believe it is just for the youth SS classes.

This is correct. The adults are not yet ready to be taught in the same way the savior taught.

[Bo Diddley]

Keep your excitement! I've been doing this for years.

(I loosely take the topic from the manual, but usually little else).

Yes, I'm reading the other big thread on correlation. I like what you're doing. I'm gonna do some more of that.

I don't know if this makes me a correlated person, but I don't like getting into speculation, or going down tangents that are more on the periphery of our teachings. To me, the really important things are the Gospel, and the application of the Gospel. I like putting things into context, which means bringing in history is very important.

On my mission I remember getting really excited about learning some deep doctrines. What I realize now, is how deep the basics of the Gospel truly are. And when the teacher and the class are discussing and testifying of the basics, the Spirit can really teach.

What is next year? D&C? I hope so. Church history is fun.

[Mrs. Funk]

I was just called as Mia Maids instructor in our new ward. I'm relieved that they've abandoned the old manuals as I hated them when I was in the youth program. I'm not so sure that I know a damned thing about teaching teenagers, though. I didn't understand teenage girls when I was one.

[Pheidippides]

Yes, I'm reading the other big thread on correlation. I like what you're doing. I'm gonna do some more of that.

I don't know if this makes me a correlated person, but I don't like getting into speculation, or going down tangents that are more on the periphery of our teachings. To me, the really important things are the Gospel, and the application of the Gospel. I like putting things into context, which means bringing in history is very important.

On my mission I remember getting really excited about learning some deep doctrines. What I realize now, is how deep the basics of the Gospel truly are. And when the teacher and the class are discussing and testifying of the basics, the Spirit can really teach.

What is next year? D&C? I hope so. Church history is fun.

You and I may be on different places on the belief spectrum (and we may not be) but it sounds like our approaches are the same. We have a huge speculative tradition in the early days of the church, but it's a dangerous thing, and the practical application of simple principles has the ability to change lives much more powerfully than thinking abstractly about what kind of silverware God uses to eat his ambrosia with.

I've tried to make it clear to my class that anything not backed up by a source needs to be qualified as an opinion. This has worked to an extent, although there's a lot of crazy stuff out there that is still speculation. But focusing in on small stuff - love your neighbor, Jesus, forgiveness, etc. - makes all the difference.

We are indeed in D&C next year. You and I will have to share notes.

[Harry Tic]

Now that we're more than half a year into it, I'd be curious to know what you all think of the new youth curriculum (teachers and Sunday School presidencies especially, but parents too). I confess that after the first few months of the year and working out the bumps associated with the transition, as a Sunday School president I had sort of put it on the back burner. But I had a chat today with a teacher of the older kids--an absolutely top-notch, dynamic, professional educator--who said the new curriculum wasn't performing. The exercises and assignments (bear your testimony to a classmate, report on a spiritual experience from the past week) seemed too contrived and the kids weren't buying it anymore. Redundancy is a really big problem too, in his view. And, apparently, the church is really scrambling to roll out new content and lesson guidelines on a timely basis, so that's a challenge as well.

Thoughts, suggestions, experiences?

[Mrs. Funk]

I teach the Mia Maids. They're bored. I think it's a mistake to have identical topics each month for both SS and YW/YM. It's hard to make the lessons fresh and relevant for them, especially the month of lessons about the priesthood.

I like that the new curriculum provides opportunities for flexible teaching and incorporating a variety of resources. However, the YW are dying basically having the same material presented twice in a row every Sunday. I try really hard to bring in additional, interesting information. The girls I teach like hearing about history and science and astronomy and anthropology and whatever other information I relate to the lesson. Sometimes I'm really reaching, though.

Overall, I think the curriculum is an improvement. Needs work and more variety, and less redundancy between SS and YW/YM.

[SCcoug]

Now that we're more than half a year into it, I'd be curious to know what you all think of the new youth curriculum (teachers and Sunday School presidencies especially, but parents too). I confess that after the first few months of the year and working out the bumps associated with the transition, as a Sunday School president I had sort of put it on the back burner. But I had a chat today with a teacher of the older kids--an absolutely top-notch, dynamic, professional educator--who said the new curriculum wasn't performing. The exercises and assignments (bear your testimony to a classmate, report on a spiritual experience from the past week) seemed too contrived and the kids weren't buying it anymore. Redundancy is a really big problem too, in his view. And, apparently, the church is really scrambling to roll out new content and lesson guidelines on a timely basis, so that's a challenge as well.

Thoughts, suggestions, experiences?

I had to sub the 12 year olds for the past two months before we could get a new teacher (actually my term as SS prez came to and end so I don't have to worry about it anymore). It is difficult to teach basically the same lesson each week of the month and make it interesting to the kids. I could get a couple lessons in that were ok but the other weeks it seemed we were going over the same material (not to mention very similar lessons in YM/YW) and the students noticed. Add to the fact that there were 12 12 year olds who were constantly trying to one up each other made for a difficult ambiance to start with.

Poor teachers will flounder with only a couple of scriptures and conference talks for material. Better teachers will have a hard time keeping the lessons engaging when it is the fourth consecutive week on prophets. I don't think any curriculum is going to make poor teachers great but changing up the topics more often than monthly would help.

[Harry Tic]

Burp.

I'm still SS president and we're gearing up for Year Two of CFM. Results have been mostly disappointing. One of my teachers, a veteran professional educator, has asked to be released if this will continue to be the new curricular model next year (which it will). His complaints are that it is (1) doubly redundant, since the themes for each month are so similar and there is little difference between the SS and YM/YW lessons; and (2) it does little, if anything, to address the kids' lack of scriptural literacy.

I'm not in a youth classroom week in and week out, so I can't necessarily corroborate. But (1) does seem plausible to me and (2) is definitely a problem. It's remarkable to see how much time is invested in educating the youth on Sundays, in seminary and institute, and yet how unfamiliar they are with the scriptures, the Bible in particular. The problem, if there is one, would seem to be the creeping predilection in church educational settings for thematic approaches to instruction, rather than ones grounded in a careful study of the text. Even in seminary, where kids ostensibly spend a full year on each volume of scripture, it's remarkable how little they learn about how to study scripture and how unfamiliar they remain with the stories, outside of a few familiar prooftexts.

[kccougar]

Burp.

I'm still SS president and we're gearing up for Year Two of CFM. Results have been mostly disappointing. One of my teachers, a veteran professional educator, has asked to be released if this will continue to be the new curricular model next year (which it will). His complaints are that it is (1) doubly redundant, since the themes for each month are so similar and there is little difference between the SS and YM/YW lessons; and (2) it does little, if anything, to address the kids' lack of scriptural literacy.

I'm not in a youth classroom week in and week out, so I can't necessarily corroborate. But (1) does seem plausible to me and (2) is definitely a problem. It's remarkable to see how much time is invested in educating the youth on Sundays, in seminary and institute, and yet how unfamiliar they are with the scriptures, the Bible in particular. The problem, if there is one, would seem to be the creeping predilection in church educational settings for thematic approaches to instruction, rather than ones grounded in a careful study of the text. Even in seminary, where kids ostensibly spend a full year on each volume of scripture, it's remarkable how little they learn about how to study scripture and how unfamiliar they remain with the stories, outside of a few familiar prooftexts.

On the other hand, the youth I've talked to really like it - and by that I mean they willingly volunteer positive opinions on the way their Sunday classes are taught.

[Moliere]

Burp.

I'm still SS president and we're gearing up for Year Two of CFM. Results have been mostly disappointing. One of my teachers, a veteran professional educator, has asked to be released if this will continue to be the new curricular model next year (which it will). His complaints are that it is (1) doubly redundant, since the themes for each month are so similar and there is little difference between the SS and YM/YW lessons; and (2) it does little, if anything, to address the kids' lack of scriptural literacy.

I'm not in a youth classroom week in and week out, so I can't necessarily corroborate. But (1) does seem plausible to me and (2) is definitely a problem. It's remarkable to see how much time is invested in educating the youth on Sundays, in seminary and institute, and yet how unfamiliar they are with the scriptures, the Bible in particular. The problem, if there is one, would seem to be the creeping predilection in church educational settings for thematic approaches to instruction, rather than ones grounded in a careful study of the text. Even in seminary, where kids ostensibly spend a full year on each volume of scripture, it's remarkable how little they learn about how to study scripture and how unfamiliar they remain with the stories, outside of a few familiar prooftexts.

Yep, we teach the LDS doctrine and support it through prooftexting so studying the scriptures is never really taught. CFM didn't really address this at all and infact it's just as bad as what we had before as it's simply theme-oriented. However, at least CFM encourages more liberalness is what resources are used in the teaching.

I'd say the seminary manuals (and maybe institute), while it has many faults and is theme-based for the most part, at least pretend to be somewhat of a scriptural study manual. I would say that our youth do tend to have a better understanding of the scriptures than most other church-going youth their age so it's not as bad as it seems. But we could do better.

[Jeff Lebowski]

New curriculum used by youth now coming to adult classes:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865600384/LDS-adults-to-get-new-course-outlines-for-Sunday-classes-new-Sunday-School-president-says.html?pg=1

I don't know enough about the youth curriculum to know if this is a good or bad thing. Thoughts?

[SCcoug]

New curriculum used by youth now coming to adult classes:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865600384/LDS-adults-to-get-new-course-outlines-for-Sunday-classes-new-Sunday-School-president-says.html?pg=1

I don't know enough about the youth curriculum to know if this is a good or bad thing. Thoughts?

Each youth lesson has a topic like "How can I liken the events of the Apostasy and Restoration to my life", a few scriptures and a few conference talks. With a poor teacher or disengaged class it can fall into the teacher retelling (or reading) the conference talks. If the new curriculum is like that it mean on a 4th Sunday you could conceivably get a SM, SS and Priesthood talk/lessons about GC talks. Yay!