Monday, November 3, 2008
After posting my first blog(ever), I hope I have given any reader a sense of why I am back in school attempting to gain a Ma.Ed. so that I can teach high school. With the passing of at least one generation it seems like a long haul. When I have spoken to friends who are teaching at the high school level I find that many of them are heading for retirement as fast as they can. So, why am I going against the grain? I really enjoy teaching and learning. The process of understanding and then being able to transfer that understanding is something I have never gotten tired of. I have found ways to do it in all other jobs I have held or made for myself. So, I am looking for input from others in this profession to teach me so that I can teach others. I have found several blogs that I have subscribed to that have helped me so far and might be of interest to others. Right now I am trying to understand the problems that teachers face with cirriculums that are based around passing state competency exams. I spoke to a 9th grade teacher who explained it in terms of budget. That is, if the state requires passsing levels in certain subject areas, then that's where the money goes. Not bad if you are a recipient,like a science teacher, but not so good if you aren't. Also, what are pro's and con's of teaching to the tests? I think these are important as the comments that I hear from many of the teachers have to do with the requirements of teaching with the state exams as the main goal. I would appriciate any input. I am sure that there is alot of opinion on this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is a great question. It sounds like your public school teaching friends could do a good job of answering that question.
I just throw in a few additional thoughts and share some words of a WASL-dissenter.
First, I think standardized testing is a good thing. According to OSPI, "The Education Reform Law passed...in 1993 required the state to create common learning standards" and "called for a testing system that measured student learning of those standards." I am not certain, but I believe that the WASL scores were not meant to measure individual student progress and but rather to assess progress of the group in meeting those standards. I think this is an important distinction, because a standardized test could be a useful tool in telling teachers and schools how they are doing in teaching the key standards. It becomes a problem when a student's success in school and ability to graduate hinges on this high-stakes test. I've never known a standardized test to be able to accurately measure the full range of students' intelligence or understanding. For many students, taking standardized tests is highly stressful. Students' self-esteem can suffer; not to mention the stressed brain is not as good at learning.
You must have heard about Carl Chew who refused to administer the WASL last year. In defense of his actions, he wrote a statement which was published in the Seattle PI. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/360071_chewletter23.html He enumerates the reasons he believes the WASL is bad for students, teachers, parents, and communities. Enjoy!
Post a Comment