After reading the articles for this week I was struck by one big unifying factor of all of the areas where students seem to be flourishing in their educational systems...the trust placed in teachers in developing local assessments to meet local, state, and national standards. In the U.S., teachers seem to be placed further and further down the totem pole in their value to the system. Canned curricula that tell you what to say and how to say it with a string of assessments are the norm. We can't be trusted to make our own local assessments and to evaluate our own students' learning. We are merely the speaking box and manager of behavior. We aren't supposed to have to think. And with NCLB and high-stakes testing, our roll has been reduced further to some degree to a person preparing students to take a multiple-choice test that will supposedly indicate their level of learning. (Sorry for my rant.)
The Zhao interivew article, "Playing 'Catch-Up' with Developing Nations Makes No Sense for U.S." had many statements that just jumped right out at me and made perfect sense. One statement was the idea that when learning is tied too strictly to one criterion people will always try to game the system. We see this with NCLB. Some states set their requirements so low they appear to be doing wonderfully, while others who set them high are apparently failing miserably, but still could be performing better. Secondly, that narrowing to one criterion will drive the system and that doesn't drive equity. That, "equity is ensured more by teachers, by the classroom than by standards." To me this is one of the major failings of the NCLB legislation. It failed to realize this important bit of information. That it wasn't and isn't the diversity of standards across the country that are failing our children, but the equity in the quality of teachers and schools.
I particularly liked from the article "What Would it Mean to Be Internationally Competitive" by Linda Darling-Hammond and Laura McCloskey the information about how these countries who are succeeding are not using their assessments to punish and sanction schools. They use the assessments as information for curriculum improvement and because of this can set higher standards. They work with schools, not against them.
The main threads of all of these articles was that assessment was tied to performance-standards more than paper-and-pencil tests. That standards and learning were geared around higher-level thinking skills: creating, analyzing, synthesizing, evaluating, etc. Skills that are the most sought after and most needed in today's world. Teachers are trusted and important to the designing of assessment and education. That learning also was geared toward the areas strengths. Their niches. What they do well. When will we finally catch on?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sorry if this seems to stray a bit, but it seems the key word amongst studying other countries educational systems is assessment.
ReplyDeleteYou made a good point about teachers being the low man on the totem pole and not being trusted to make own local assessments.
However in thinking about assessments and thinking about the U.S's way and ways other countries assess their students, I wonder how things would run if there was a national curriculum in the U.S. like other countries do. It seems that other countries have a better way of assessing students then the U.S.'s multiple choice option. We all know a student has a 25% chance of guessing the right answer on a multiple choice question, how much is this really assessing their knowledge of the standards/curriculum we hold them to. If there was a national curriculum then we would be able to provided different assessments. What about differentiation? Providing students with a variety of questions so that we may hit upon the way they perform (meaning assess knowledge) in a more accurate way then just providing multiple choice. Challenge all students with short answer, fill in the blank, true/false, matching, short essay, what about developing a kinesthetic or even allowing students to creatively show their knowledge of the curriculum/standards through say artworks or in depth projects. Who says assessment has to be in test form?
Something to think about: Would a national curriculum give teachers more accountability and acknowledgment where everyone is held to the same standards or does the U.S. need that separation amongst curriculum and assessments between states on a national, state and local level?
I agree but am also depressed by the point you made in regards to teachers being placed low on the totem pole. It forces me to think about the health curriculum I am using now. We are using a federally funded program called "The Great Body Shop". I teach it to four classes a week for 50 minutes. Each lesson is scripted out and all I have to do is read it to the kids and hand out the corresponding worksheets. Because the program is federally funded, my curriculum coordinator is asking that I preassess the students on a unit, teach the unit, and then do a final assessment. I am being evaluated on my ability to teach them health with this information. How is this possible? I am not using any of my strengths as a teacher, my creativity, my energy, it is all being sapped by a scripted program. Just like kids learning, teachers need to be able to teach in a way that fits them best!
ReplyDeleteHi Jessica, you make a very valid point about a national curriculum. I always wonder whether some of our struggles with creating a national curriculum is the diversity of the population and diversity of wealth. I do not know much about other nations, but I have heard that others are less diverse culturally and economically making it easy I guess for a national curriculum to gain traction. There are national standards in place for many of the major subjects (maybe all, I'm not sure).
ReplyDeleteTo Sarah, I to use "The Great Body Shop" in my 1st grade classroom, but I have more flexibility in the "script." I do not have to do the assessments that come along with the program or the worksheets. I read through the information and use it as a guide to my lessons. As for the 1st grade version of this program I think it is really well done, but if what I primarily taught was health I too would be frustrated with not being able to use my strengths or creativity as a teacher.