After watching the video of the laws and standards for curriculum, I find very few shackles in them. I find benefits in just about all of them. The core curriculum standards are what students should know and be able to do. There are a lot of them and if we do follow them as teachers, it will only help the students. We also adapt the standards to students who have an IEP, LEP, and are G&T. It adapts to every student, which I think is great. The topics that should be covered I agree with that they should be covered. The requirement for high school students I do not have a problem with because it opens up students to all the subjects. If they choose to go to college, they now have a better understanding of what they want to further pursue. It's good that their are accountability levels to make sure we are doing the right thing. I think it's great that there is extra funding and extra scrutiny for Abbott school districts. I see nothing wrong with giving them more money when they are much poorer than some other school districts. This will help them keep up with the wealthier school systems. The PIP and 100 hours for students are good because they keep the teacher on track of becoming a better teacher.
The only shackles that I see with these laws and codes are installing them. I think the idea and purpose for them are great, but it's maintaining them that are tough. I worked in an Abbott school before I went to Clifton, and the extra scrutiny didn't really seem to help. Also, I felt the extra funding was not used correctly. I remember that the high school football team three brand new jerseys for their team, which they really didn't need. Some of that money could have been used to fix the 80-year-old school that I was teaching in and falling apart. I'm not saying all Abbott schools are like the one I was in, but I'm sure there are some like it.
At my school, we just got a brand new vice principal, and he was assigned to the Phys Ed. department. He's been a real stickler with all the core curriculum standards in out lesson plans. At first, this annoyed us, but then we realized, he's right and he's our boss, so we have to do it. Plus, it's better for the student to make sure you're teaching them the right thing. What I disagree with the state is the NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT. Our school isn't doing too good with the state testing. We failed two years in a row. Now, the state is all over us. I don't feel a school should be judged on if students pass a test or not. It's makes father Sarducci right when he says that education just comes down to memorization. If all the state cares about is a test, then we should really just be teaching them the test. The students need more than that.
I think there should be national and state standards. Every state is different, and every state had a different kind of population. I think the national standards should be general and cover the main topics every student needs to learn, and the state standards can get more specific. But, I am not opposed to standards.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Many share your frustrations about state testing. However, what other ways are there to have accountability and to compare districts?
ReplyDeleteWell I agree testing is a way to show accountablility and compare, but it shouldn't be the only way. I think so much effort goes into the tests that we forget to teach the students some of the other important topics that should be taught. I think student progress is a way to show accountability, as long is the student is learning the curriculum. Also, maybe we should find out if the student feels he or she is learning, not just memorizing and forgetting like Father Sarducci says.
ReplyDelete