I took an ideology test in my SED 406 class and I "passed" as learner centered. (If you'd like to take the test, here you go! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oWzwLDM4w_SL55xo-iGUEytNYrcLySiFoFa4A0GYjLA/edit?usp=sharing )
To start, I can somewhat agree with the NCTE and Common Core Standards for English/Language Arts, however they do not come first to me. I am all for the student. Each individual student.
Don't get me wrong, I think it is important to have guidelines and requirements so teachers have an idea of what the students needs to be taught, and they are able to be held accountable for what they teach the students. I also like how in the NCTE Standards Book, Defining the Standards, it is said, "Although the standards focus primarily on content, we also underscore the importance of other dimensions of language learning. In particular, we believe that questions of why, when, and how students grow and develop as language users are also critical and must be addressed by those who translate the standards into practice". It is important that these standards mention this because the students can not just be thrown the content and expected to memorize for testing. Each and every student is different and will learn and understand the content being taught at different times and through variations of teaching.
Regarding the Core Standards, I learned in my SED 406 class it is easier to write the lesson first, then pick the standards that follows along. I had to write these standards in my lesson plan for this class for the first time, it was basically just like picking out numbers and letters. Lesson is meaningful and to help students succeed, standards are just what happens to be in the lesson designed.
And of course, I've saved the best for last.
PARCC SUCKS!
And I don't have many other words for that.
I enjoyed reading Rhode Island Teachers Respond to PARCC and I was able to connect with how the teachers felt obligated to urge their students to take the test. I completed my field work for the CCRI version of FNED at Shea High School during test week. The teachers there were stressed. As much as they tried to prepare the students and put some food in their stomachs, they had been told that their jobs were at stake depending on these tests. While half of the students in the classes I was in had some type of IEP. I worked alongside a Special Education Teacher who floated in and out of classes to work with the teachers so her students were at a high risk of failing. Especially, since like this article states, they could barely even read the test questions properly, never mind answer them correctly.
More than 50% of the students went to the library or computer lab during the test times, but the other students were stressed, coming in to grab a granola bar from the teacher for breakfast and on the verge of tears for fear of failure. The students I observed and worked with were in grades 10 through 12 and all of the students I talked with were against it, some upset that their parents never got around to signing the opt out form.
Most of the charts and graphs in this article, I was not shocked by. However, I was surprised by the comparison between the rural and urban school student responses to PARCC. It seemed that more students in the urban schools agreed that there is a positive response. It did not seem to me that Shea High School, an urban school, had any positive responses. The only thing I can think of is if the school is trying to create a more positive environment during this time and trying harder than usual. I'm not quite sure I've figured this out or have any ideas on it. Do you have any ideas? Anyone that has been in an urban and rural school during testing? I would love some feedback on this!
I agree that one of the worst things to read in that white paper was how demoralized the schools are during testing. As a pre-service teacher, it's worrisome that teachers feel like their jobs are on the line of the students don't perform well enough. This is another example of the debate between encouraging growth or proficiency... I'll be watching the conversations unfold as the country tries to select someone to run the Dept of Education. Until these standardized tests are able to reflect accurate measurements of growth OR proficiency, I think it's wrong to put teachers jobs on the line, for test scores that may not provide true measurements of student ability.
ReplyDeleteI also passed as learner centered when I took the ideology quiz in SED 406! great response. I honestly never knew that students could opt out of the PARCC. I have seen first hand how teachers feel the pressure of their jobs being on the lines because of these tests and it is scary. I feel that this pressure takes the focus away from impactful teaching to teaching for the test.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said about creating a lesson with standards in mind. Professor McKamey did a good job of explaining that the ideas for the lesson should come first, and to worry about the standards later. To do it in the opposite direction seems too robotic. And I had similar experiences with PARCC testing in my service learning class! I agree that this test should be changed radically or simply destroyed. Great post!
ReplyDeleteI love your use of pictures in this. The picture that stated "My Child Is Not Common" is perfect and well said. You were right when you said every child is different and that seems to be forgotten when standards are made. We may wish they were all the same, but that will never happen. I like how passionate you are about being against PARCC, its good to know what you stand for as a teacher. I also agree about the English Common Core standards. They aren't "too bad" but when I see standards for other classes, mainly math, I can't help but worry about what we are doing to students today.
ReplyDeleteI can totally relate to your feelings about the PARCC; I have had several conversations with teachers who are affected by the unfairness present in those standardized tests. I have witnessed students during their PARCC practice completely shut down because they did not understand the topics or could not figure out how to do it on the computer. Instead of stressing out students and teachers with information that is not in the curriculum, why don't we reevaluate our method of testing?
ReplyDelete