What were your priorities in school? Were you focused on learning for the sake of learning, or just trying to be able to regurgitate information to get a passing grade? Were you concerned more about knowing information because it was useful in life? Or were you concerned with your GPA so you could get into the college you wanted? I know I was more concerned in passing my classes instead of learning. I wanted to get into Luther, and I knew that my GPA would influence not only the chance of getting accepted but also the chance for scholarships. I never really though about the skills and abilities I was being taught, I was just so focused on getting into Luther.
In high school everything that I did involved a grade. Participate in class, earn points. Present a PowerPoint Slideshow about a Supreme Court Justice, earn points. Take a test about certain cabinets and leadership positions in the government, earn points. We are teaching students that school is just about getting points that give us a letter grade indicating our performance. Students complete homework because their grade depends on it and they don't take the time to analyze what or how the homework impacts their life. We aren't teaching skills, we are teaching labor.
In college so much more attention is put towards how daily life is impacted by what we are learning. Take Physics for example. There are properties of individual parts of particles that act differently when viewed on a microscopic scale than when they are viewed at the total particle level. If we can understand how ideas like this can work like this then we can figure out why certain things happen in life that we didn't understand before. This discovery is learning.
Because this is drastically different from what we do in elementary, middle, and high schools, students have to change their thought process and sometimes work ethic to match what a college expects. Sure, college is harder than high school. But this difference in application of knowledge is what can make a "perfectly capable high school student" fail and drop out of college.
Another thing to consider is that grades are not standardized. To reach an A in a math class may take more rigorous work to complete daily assignments and weekly tests with enough problems answered correctly, while in a psychology class a student might just need to conduct a few surveys and state their results to receive an A. Obviously the math students are working harder but receiving the same grade as psychology students that aren't working as hard.
Hard work is another problem with grades. How do you tell if someone needs to work hard to complete an assignment. I was strong in math, so I could complete a math assignment in ten minutes and receive an A while other students would work for hours and only receive a C. Is that something that should just be accepted, or do we need to change how we evaluate learning? Do we even need to evaluate learning?
I believe teachers believe to strongly in evaluating the amount a student has learned by ways of homework and tests. Think about it. If a student is just able to take a certain amount of information and regurgitate it back on homework or a test and forget about it because the class has moved on from that, did they actually learn anything? No. They are just working hard enough to get the grade they want and be as lazy as possible. We promote this more as we increase the amount of homework and testing done in class.
What we need to do is look back to the way the ancient Greeks taught. A scholar would talk about a subject, and if it was a debatable subject present different arguments for different sides, and the students would ask questions and take notes. There were no tests, no homework, just an open forum. The students learned, those students in turn taught the next generation of students, and civilization progressed forward. If it worked back then, who says that it cant work now? Cancel your homework assignments and postpone your tests indefinitely. Give interactive lectures and demonstrations, and let the students interact or create their own demo about the next subject you teach. They will be more interested and will actually learn something and remember it for years to come.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
We Are Losing the Arts
Do you remember your high school music and arts programs? What were they like? Did they have a strong representation within the student body? How were they treated by the administration? I remember mine quite well. My high school had some of the strongest music and arts programs in our district. Yet, the student body and the administration did not like the music and arts programs.
Our choirs, bands, and orchestra always performed well. Entrance into the top choir, band, and the orchestra was competitive, and many people who tried out did not make it into the highest group, but they usually made it into a group. Concerts were always sold out and the community enjoyed the performances. The top choir would even perform at churches in the community and was always well accepted. The top band and orchestra would perform at local district performances with other bands and orchestras as well as individual performances. We also had many art classes, from drawing to painting to sculpting to woodworking and metalworking. Students enjoyed those classes and their creations would be displayed in publications within the school. There were no problems between students other classes and the students in music and arts classes.
Still, the student body looked down upon the music and arts programs. They never liked the directors or teachers and they didn't want anything to do with them. If there was a rehearsal going on and it interrupted certain things that happened everyday, like taking over space that could be used during students' free time, they would complain and became more vocal about it over time, even though it was only a few times per year. Students would complain in other classes that the music and arts classes were interrupting with where they could spend their open hour or that they had to go to class while the music students had a rehearsal the day of their concert and missed class. The other students didn't realize what needs to be put into a music class to make a performance a success. I would say that they have little experience performing in front of an audience in a non-physical way or have not performed in front
What is worse is how the administration treated the music and arts programs. If a sports team became a little too rowdy at a game or caused damage in the locker rooms they would just have the coaches talk to the sports team and that was that. But if anything happened in the music or arts areas, even leaving a little trash on the floor or a scratch in the wall, the principle would come in and talk to the class and take away certain "privileges" that the class had, like coming in during an open hour or during lunch to work on a music piece or their artwork.
What is happening to cause this? Are parents pushing that sports are more important than music and art and that people who participate in sports are doing something more worthwhile? Somewhere we are losing the desire for creativity and increasing the desire for physical competition. Without creativity we will lose new music artists and songs, new instrumental compositions, and new television cartoons in the future. Is this what we want for the future? We need to encourage music and art more. Don't lose sports, but increase the amount of focus on music and art.
Our choirs, bands, and orchestra always performed well. Entrance into the top choir, band, and the orchestra was competitive, and many people who tried out did not make it into the highest group, but they usually made it into a group. Concerts were always sold out and the community enjoyed the performances. The top choir would even perform at churches in the community and was always well accepted. The top band and orchestra would perform at local district performances with other bands and orchestras as well as individual performances. We also had many art classes, from drawing to painting to sculpting to woodworking and metalworking. Students enjoyed those classes and their creations would be displayed in publications within the school. There were no problems between students other classes and the students in music and arts classes.
Still, the student body looked down upon the music and arts programs. They never liked the directors or teachers and they didn't want anything to do with them. If there was a rehearsal going on and it interrupted certain things that happened everyday, like taking over space that could be used during students' free time, they would complain and became more vocal about it over time, even though it was only a few times per year. Students would complain in other classes that the music and arts classes were interrupting with where they could spend their open hour or that they had to go to class while the music students had a rehearsal the day of their concert and missed class. The other students didn't realize what needs to be put into a music class to make a performance a success. I would say that they have little experience performing in front of an audience in a non-physical way or have not performed in front
What is worse is how the administration treated the music and arts programs. If a sports team became a little too rowdy at a game or caused damage in the locker rooms they would just have the coaches talk to the sports team and that was that. But if anything happened in the music or arts areas, even leaving a little trash on the floor or a scratch in the wall, the principle would come in and talk to the class and take away certain "privileges" that the class had, like coming in during an open hour or during lunch to work on a music piece or their artwork.
What is happening to cause this? Are parents pushing that sports are more important than music and art and that people who participate in sports are doing something more worthwhile? Somewhere we are losing the desire for creativity and increasing the desire for physical competition. Without creativity we will lose new music artists and songs, new instrumental compositions, and new television cartoons in the future. Is this what we want for the future? We need to encourage music and art more. Don't lose sports, but increase the amount of focus on music and art.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Special Education?
I will warn you ahead of time that I am not against persons with disabilities, but rather look at society as a whole and determine the use of resources on those who will produce more efficiently as a better use of resources.
There are many debilitating diseases and disorders that affect many people around the world. Some just shorten the life span, some deform the looks, and some affect the mental development of humans. Every case is tragic, and I would like cures and preventions for all of them.
One thing about these cases that affect the mental development of a person that concern me as a future educator is how effective teaching them really is.
I know everyone is entitled to an education in the US, and I believe that should be true for everyone no matter what. But, depending on the severity of the mental disability, is there a point where it becomes more expensive to try to educate them and try to let them lead a life as close to normal as they possibly can? Or should we always strive to reach out to the full extent and spend freely trying to educate everyone to the best of our abilities?
Is it fair to the other students in the school if the school spends more money to teach a student requiring a constant aide, special transportation, free meals, and special classes, tutors, and other professional help than it does spending the same amount of money teaching five students who are not mentally disabled? (I picked an arbitrary number, just for the sake of argument)
Now again, I do believe that everyone is entitled to an education, but it does seem strange that we could be spending more money on one person who finds it more difficult to learn than on the five others when they could be provided with even more opportunities like extra-curricula activities, music, art, and after-school classes that they would be interested in if the money was spent on the other students.
Special education students need this money spent on them though. I would not like to deprive them of the education they are entitled to. Everyone deserves the opportunity to learn, and who am I to take it away? In my opinion it would be interesting to see what could be done if the money spent on special education was spent towards the schools in general. The possible extra class choices could benefit the students and lead them on to things they wouldn't normally have chosen. But the same could be said about educating special education students as well. Still, if the money was put towards extra classes and extra-curricular activities, students might also be more interested in school because of it.
Another issue with special education is how much will a special education student be able to give back to the community? I know several who do, but I also know some who do not. Again it depends on the severity of the mental disability, but are we spending the money in a way that benefits every special education student, ways that benefit special education students that will be able to give back to the community, or ways that just benefit the majority? They are difficult to determine because I don't believe in sacrificing one person's education for someone else's belief, and would not be fair to the special education students.
So, special education is necessary, but what could be the possibilities if the extra money was spent elsewhere? It could be good, or it might not make a difference, but it would be interesting to know.
There are many debilitating diseases and disorders that affect many people around the world. Some just shorten the life span, some deform the looks, and some affect the mental development of humans. Every case is tragic, and I would like cures and preventions for all of them.
One thing about these cases that affect the mental development of a person that concern me as a future educator is how effective teaching them really is.
I know everyone is entitled to an education in the US, and I believe that should be true for everyone no matter what. But, depending on the severity of the mental disability, is there a point where it becomes more expensive to try to educate them and try to let them lead a life as close to normal as they possibly can? Or should we always strive to reach out to the full extent and spend freely trying to educate everyone to the best of our abilities?
Is it fair to the other students in the school if the school spends more money to teach a student requiring a constant aide, special transportation, free meals, and special classes, tutors, and other professional help than it does spending the same amount of money teaching five students who are not mentally disabled? (I picked an arbitrary number, just for the sake of argument)
Now again, I do believe that everyone is entitled to an education, but it does seem strange that we could be spending more money on one person who finds it more difficult to learn than on the five others when they could be provided with even more opportunities like extra-curricula activities, music, art, and after-school classes that they would be interested in if the money was spent on the other students.
Special education students need this money spent on them though. I would not like to deprive them of the education they are entitled to. Everyone deserves the opportunity to learn, and who am I to take it away? In my opinion it would be interesting to see what could be done if the money spent on special education was spent towards the schools in general. The possible extra class choices could benefit the students and lead them on to things they wouldn't normally have chosen. But the same could be said about educating special education students as well. Still, if the money was put towards extra classes and extra-curricular activities, students might also be more interested in school because of it.
Another issue with special education is how much will a special education student be able to give back to the community? I know several who do, but I also know some who do not. Again it depends on the severity of the mental disability, but are we spending the money in a way that benefits every special education student, ways that benefit special education students that will be able to give back to the community, or ways that just benefit the majority? They are difficult to determine because I don't believe in sacrificing one person's education for someone else's belief, and would not be fair to the special education students.
So, special education is necessary, but what could be the possibilities if the extra money was spent elsewhere? It could be good, or it might not make a difference, but it would be interesting to know.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Controversial Issues
Why do we bother with censorship? When you watch television and you hear a bleep or see a blur, most people know what is going on. Do we feel that our children are going to be corrupted if they are ever exposed to anything that they wouldn't see or hear at a church? At a school students are going to interact with other students that will introduce these things to other students whether it is intentional or not. I know, from my personal experience, many students that both learned new things from other students and told things to other students. Some students were interested and curious about these things that they had been "shielded" from, and some wanted nothing to do with these things that they had been "shielded" from.
So knowing that, in some form or another, the students are going to learn things that their parents do not want them to learn, why are we not talking about "controversial issues" in class? There are many current events that students are interested in that we as educators are not talking about. We have something that students are interested in and completely ignore it. We could be developing the skills of reasoning and empathy by looking at the issues and each viewpoint.
I believe that we are losing these skills of reasoning and empathy as a nation. People in the United States tend to care about themselves before even considering others. This does not bode well because we are only a part of the world, and our standing in the world is decreasing when viewed from other nations. Large SUV's, a lack of an efficient public transportation system, being aggressive and starting wars without a solid, definite reason, and having an arrogant and ignorant population that only cares about themselves creates an image that most cultures would scoff at.
Of course, there is an appropriate age for this, and I would not recommend this for anyone that was not in high school. Teaching and talking about these issues can be delicate and I believe that in high school the students would be able to make their own decision about the issue and defend their view in class. The teacher would need to moderate to make sure the discussion wouldn't get too heated and prevent any religious beliefs from entering the discussion, because once they do, everything turns south. I'm not saying that they can't use their religious beliefs to form their opinion, but to start quoting from the Bible and saying that God does this to people that do that is beyond what would be acceptable in a classroom discussion.
Gay marriage, abortion, the death penalty, stem cell research, and euthanasia should be talked about in high school because there is more control over the argument so that students won't get pressured into believing what their parents believe or what the radio, television, and billboard ads tell them. The student would be able to make his or her own decision from the information talked about in class and therefore have a more informed opinion and also know why the other viewpoints have their opinion as well.
Stay on top of the discussion and the topic will see some interesting viewpoints and reasonings.
So knowing that, in some form or another, the students are going to learn things that their parents do not want them to learn, why are we not talking about "controversial issues" in class? There are many current events that students are interested in that we as educators are not talking about. We have something that students are interested in and completely ignore it. We could be developing the skills of reasoning and empathy by looking at the issues and each viewpoint.
I believe that we are losing these skills of reasoning and empathy as a nation. People in the United States tend to care about themselves before even considering others. This does not bode well because we are only a part of the world, and our standing in the world is decreasing when viewed from other nations. Large SUV's, a lack of an efficient public transportation system, being aggressive and starting wars without a solid, definite reason, and having an arrogant and ignorant population that only cares about themselves creates an image that most cultures would scoff at.
Of course, there is an appropriate age for this, and I would not recommend this for anyone that was not in high school. Teaching and talking about these issues can be delicate and I believe that in high school the students would be able to make their own decision about the issue and defend their view in class. The teacher would need to moderate to make sure the discussion wouldn't get too heated and prevent any religious beliefs from entering the discussion, because once they do, everything turns south. I'm not saying that they can't use their religious beliefs to form their opinion, but to start quoting from the Bible and saying that God does this to people that do that is beyond what would be acceptable in a classroom discussion.
Gay marriage, abortion, the death penalty, stem cell research, and euthanasia should be talked about in high school because there is more control over the argument so that students won't get pressured into believing what their parents believe or what the radio, television, and billboard ads tell them. The student would be able to make his or her own decision from the information talked about in class and therefore have a more informed opinion and also know why the other viewpoints have their opinion as well.
Stay on top of the discussion and the topic will see some interesting viewpoints and reasonings.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Homework or Busywork?
It is a sunny day out with a gentle breeze, just strong enough to keep the bugs away. The jungle gym is shimmering when looked at from a distance, its colors spanning all those found in a rainbow. The swing set creaks softly; The rustling of the chains is barely audible. The massive blacktop, marked with chalk and paint set the boundaries of the kickball fields and four-square courts. A gleaming, grassy field is just beyond the sea of asphalt, seems to beckon to passersby to come take a rest and lie down or play an impromptu game of football or soccer. A bell chimes out. Students rush out of a brick citadel and out to the playground, every group marking their domain. But, their time is cut short as their parents come to pick them up, knowing that there is a mound of homework that must be done before the student can enjoy the vast land of the playground.
Does this seem familiar to you? It does to me. As a student in elementary school, the playground seemed much more intriguing than it does to me today. Is it because I am twenty years old and find these things childish? No, I would love to play a game of kickball or four-square and be like a kid again. So what makes us lose our interest in these childhood past-times? Homework. Every student's third most hated phrase, falling just short of "pop quiz" and "test." When I was in kindergarten and first grade, we had plenty of play time along with some learning time. Numbers, letters, and eventually words, spelling, and memorizing our contact information were all that we were concerned about learning. We didn't have to worry about filling out times tables or reading required novels or writing research papers. We just learned something new and worked with that new information during the rest of the day and maybe into the next day or two. We didn't bring anything home besides a spelling list because that was our ticket to learning the language. All we were concerned about were playing and learning new things that seemed strange and unconventional to us at the time.
Then, from second grade on, we were taught a new word: homework. Why was I given a sheet (or multiple sheets as I became older) to complete at home when I spend five to six hours of my day in a classroom? Why can't we work on these new ideas and concepts in class like I did back in kindergarten and first grade? Why can't I just go play on that wonderful playground after school? Why do I need to do this homework?
Teachers tell themselves that homework is a way to check that their students are learning new concepts an ideas, and rarely think twice before assigning homework every day, even in elementary schools. If a student is struggling then the teacher will tell himself or herself that he or she can spend a little more time with tat student on the subject. If a large number of students are struggling with the information, then the teacher will go over the information again, and assign even more homework.
I have heard some of my teachers complain about all the grading they do and wish that they didn't have to do it. And they are also the ones assigning twenty math problems every day or requiring many tests, quizzes, and classwork regularly. It seems they don't realize that in the end they are only making themselves work harder. But, not just because they need to grade more work.
As the amount of homework increases, students tend to resent the teacher that gives them homework every day. Because of this, the students lose interest and motivation in class, and the teacher must work harder to make the class interesting and to motivate the students. What used to be a simple lesson plan of teaching a few concepts with a demonstration or hands-on experiment an giving out homework could spiral into teaching one concept and creating ways to keep students motivated and interested, including multiple demonstrations, hands-on experiments, interactive class discussions, etc. Not only does this increase the amount of work a teacher must exert in teaching, but the effort also goes into creating a lesson plan. And to top it off, the daily homework assignments must be graded as well!
Why do we insist that homework will improve students' understanding of the concepts? If a student struggles with an assignment, they may lose confidence in their abilities, and then begin a downward spiral to a failing grade. Not only would you have a decimated student that is failing in your class, but you also have angry parents to deal with, on top of all the other work that you are doing. We as educators need to re-evaluate how often, how much, and what style of homework we give to our students.
Also, a daily assignment tends to become busywork in the eyes of a student. This is even more apparent when there are similar concepts with just one or two other factors that are different. If you were teaching addition and assigned a full page of addition problems and recommended that the student use buttons, coins, jellybeans, or other small items to solidify the concept, doing the same with subtraction the next day would be slightly different but still a similar process. Students will tire of doing similar tasks over and over again and view the daily homework as boring and monotonous.
Sure, the appeal of the playground will be lost sometime after the transition into middle school, and homework can be more frequent, but it should be relevant and useful to the student, not just something to have the student do because they are a student and you are a teacher. And the transition into high school and post-secondary will give the student even more homework, but then there is no more playground outside the school, beckoning to the students, distracting them from the lesson being presented to them.
I would agree that you can't entirely eliminate homework from any grade level, but I also argue against having more than one or two homework assignments per week before middle school, because then there is no more playground for the student to have fun at. The distraction would be gone. But if we admit this, then why are we making the elementary students do homework instead of playing on the playground after school? Cut back the amount of homework given before middle school, and then we have students who are still interested in learning and have had time to be a kid.
Does this seem familiar to you? It does to me. As a student in elementary school, the playground seemed much more intriguing than it does to me today. Is it because I am twenty years old and find these things childish? No, I would love to play a game of kickball or four-square and be like a kid again. So what makes us lose our interest in these childhood past-times? Homework. Every student's third most hated phrase, falling just short of "pop quiz" and "test." When I was in kindergarten and first grade, we had plenty of play time along with some learning time. Numbers, letters, and eventually words, spelling, and memorizing our contact information were all that we were concerned about learning. We didn't have to worry about filling out times tables or reading required novels or writing research papers. We just learned something new and worked with that new information during the rest of the day and maybe into the next day or two. We didn't bring anything home besides a spelling list because that was our ticket to learning the language. All we were concerned about were playing and learning new things that seemed strange and unconventional to us at the time.
Then, from second grade on, we were taught a new word: homework. Why was I given a sheet (or multiple sheets as I became older) to complete at home when I spend five to six hours of my day in a classroom? Why can't we work on these new ideas and concepts in class like I did back in kindergarten and first grade? Why can't I just go play on that wonderful playground after school? Why do I need to do this homework?
Teachers tell themselves that homework is a way to check that their students are learning new concepts an ideas, and rarely think twice before assigning homework every day, even in elementary schools. If a student is struggling then the teacher will tell himself or herself that he or she can spend a little more time with tat student on the subject. If a large number of students are struggling with the information, then the teacher will go over the information again, and assign even more homework.
I have heard some of my teachers complain about all the grading they do and wish that they didn't have to do it. And they are also the ones assigning twenty math problems every day or requiring many tests, quizzes, and classwork regularly. It seems they don't realize that in the end they are only making themselves work harder. But, not just because they need to grade more work.
As the amount of homework increases, students tend to resent the teacher that gives them homework every day. Because of this, the students lose interest and motivation in class, and the teacher must work harder to make the class interesting and to motivate the students. What used to be a simple lesson plan of teaching a few concepts with a demonstration or hands-on experiment an giving out homework could spiral into teaching one concept and creating ways to keep students motivated and interested, including multiple demonstrations, hands-on experiments, interactive class discussions, etc. Not only does this increase the amount of work a teacher must exert in teaching, but the effort also goes into creating a lesson plan. And to top it off, the daily homework assignments must be graded as well!
Why do we insist that homework will improve students' understanding of the concepts? If a student struggles with an assignment, they may lose confidence in their abilities, and then begin a downward spiral to a failing grade. Not only would you have a decimated student that is failing in your class, but you also have angry parents to deal with, on top of all the other work that you are doing. We as educators need to re-evaluate how often, how much, and what style of homework we give to our students.
Also, a daily assignment tends to become busywork in the eyes of a student. This is even more apparent when there are similar concepts with just one or two other factors that are different. If you were teaching addition and assigned a full page of addition problems and recommended that the student use buttons, coins, jellybeans, or other small items to solidify the concept, doing the same with subtraction the next day would be slightly different but still a similar process. Students will tire of doing similar tasks over and over again and view the daily homework as boring and monotonous.
Sure, the appeal of the playground will be lost sometime after the transition into middle school, and homework can be more frequent, but it should be relevant and useful to the student, not just something to have the student do because they are a student and you are a teacher. And the transition into high school and post-secondary will give the student even more homework, but then there is no more playground outside the school, beckoning to the students, distracting them from the lesson being presented to them.
I would agree that you can't entirely eliminate homework from any grade level, but I also argue against having more than one or two homework assignments per week before middle school, because then there is no more playground for the student to have fun at. The distraction would be gone. But if we admit this, then why are we making the elementary students do homework instead of playing on the playground after school? Cut back the amount of homework given before middle school, and then we have students who are still interested in learning and have had time to be a kid.
Friday, November 2, 2007
No Child Left Behind?
So President George W. Bush encouraged the No Child Left Behind act and signed it readily when it came to him. He claimed that it would help determine which schools in the US are not meeting the standards that were set for that school by either their district or state and create a new focus of education in America.
Now we know which schools are not meeting the standards. And what would you expect a bill that is supposed to help improve education across America do for these school that are struggling to meet their standards? Give them a financial boost to help them improve or re-energize their schools. But wait, what does the bill actually do? It cuts federal funding from the schools that are not meeting their set standard.
Does this make sense? I do not believe so. When you come across a person in the desert begging for water, you don't force a glass of sand down their throat, you give them the water that they ask for. Cutting federal funding from a school that is failing to meet their standards is only going to make matters worse. Sure, you can cut extra-curricular activities, art, and music from the school to save money and focus on the standards, but then where will children get to experiment with various extra-curricular activities, where will they get to experiment with art and music? What happens to creativity and the desire to perform if we force children to dive into textbooks and chalkboards all day without something else to channel their creative, artistic, and energetic impulses?
Now, besides curriculum, there are two other factors that also should be questioned. The more glaring problem is the fact that the state or district can set their standards to a point that is so low that their students will easily meet those standards and not really "prove" what they know. If I was the super-intendant of a school board I would demand lower standards so that I could have the students meeting those standards without spending the money on just what the government believes is important content. Math, reading, writing, and science are the most important, leaving physical education, art, and music out of the picture, even though we want out children to be able to experience and choose art, music, and PE classes that interest them. With the federal money I would not neglect teaching the students the "important" subjects, but rather use that money to help keep and/or improve the music and arts classes so our children can continue to become the next Michelangelo or Bach.
The other issue that needs to be brought up is how the standards are assessed. I remember taking a NCLB standardized test that I was informed would have no impact on my grade in high school. After being told that, why should I bother taking it if there is no impact on my grade? I took the test and I gave an effort, but nothing near what I gave on the SAT or ACT. If i knew something I put it down, and if I didn't know it I just put down an answer and continued on. I didn't see any reason for me to care about the test if it didn't affect my grade, so I may not have scored as meeting the standard, although on all the other standardized tests I performed at a post high school level since I was in 7th Grade, so even at a partial attempt I more than likely met the standard. What about students who don't want to be in school, or those students that have special needs? Do we hold them to the same standards even though they dislike school or struggle with concepts that students without special needs know easily? We do, but we shouldn't. Otherwise we are allowing a bias before even passing out the test because there are students that have special needs or won't care about how they do in school. Another part of the issue of standardized tests are the tests themselves. Are they truly standardized? Are there no biases? Is the test reliable? Is the test valid? Not only do we worry about the test questions, but we also worry about the answers. Is it better to have true and false questions, multiple choice questions, short answer questions, essay questions, or matching? How do they affect the results? We never know because each class and each student is different, so can we really have a standardized test?
It sounds great, but can we really expect that we will not leave a child behind?
Now we know which schools are not meeting the standards. And what would you expect a bill that is supposed to help improve education across America do for these school that are struggling to meet their standards? Give them a financial boost to help them improve or re-energize their schools. But wait, what does the bill actually do? It cuts federal funding from the schools that are not meeting their set standard.
Does this make sense? I do not believe so. When you come across a person in the desert begging for water, you don't force a glass of sand down their throat, you give them the water that they ask for. Cutting federal funding from a school that is failing to meet their standards is only going to make matters worse. Sure, you can cut extra-curricular activities, art, and music from the school to save money and focus on the standards, but then where will children get to experiment with various extra-curricular activities, where will they get to experiment with art and music? What happens to creativity and the desire to perform if we force children to dive into textbooks and chalkboards all day without something else to channel their creative, artistic, and energetic impulses?
Now, besides curriculum, there are two other factors that also should be questioned. The more glaring problem is the fact that the state or district can set their standards to a point that is so low that their students will easily meet those standards and not really "prove" what they know. If I was the super-intendant of a school board I would demand lower standards so that I could have the students meeting those standards without spending the money on just what the government believes is important content. Math, reading, writing, and science are the most important, leaving physical education, art, and music out of the picture, even though we want out children to be able to experience and choose art, music, and PE classes that interest them. With the federal money I would not neglect teaching the students the "important" subjects, but rather use that money to help keep and/or improve the music and arts classes so our children can continue to become the next Michelangelo or Bach.
The other issue that needs to be brought up is how the standards are assessed. I remember taking a NCLB standardized test that I was informed would have no impact on my grade in high school. After being told that, why should I bother taking it if there is no impact on my grade? I took the test and I gave an effort, but nothing near what I gave on the SAT or ACT. If i knew something I put it down, and if I didn't know it I just put down an answer and continued on. I didn't see any reason for me to care about the test if it didn't affect my grade, so I may not have scored as meeting the standard, although on all the other standardized tests I performed at a post high school level since I was in 7th Grade, so even at a partial attempt I more than likely met the standard. What about students who don't want to be in school, or those students that have special needs? Do we hold them to the same standards even though they dislike school or struggle with concepts that students without special needs know easily? We do, but we shouldn't. Otherwise we are allowing a bias before even passing out the test because there are students that have special needs or won't care about how they do in school. Another part of the issue of standardized tests are the tests themselves. Are they truly standardized? Are there no biases? Is the test reliable? Is the test valid? Not only do we worry about the test questions, but we also worry about the answers. Is it better to have true and false questions, multiple choice questions, short answer questions, essay questions, or matching? How do they affect the results? We never know because each class and each student is different, so can we really have a standardized test?
It sounds great, but can we really expect that we will not leave a child behind?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)