TE 818- Theme 5 Finals Thoughts

There were several big ideas expressed in the readings by myself and my peers. The idea that came up the most is whether or not a national curriculum i.e. the Common Core is a good thing for us. Overall, it seemed like most people liked the idea of the Common Core and the guidelines it would place for teachers to keep on track. Most of us also saw the Common Core as loosely framed to be able to adapt to how the teacher wants to use it within the classroom. Like the Common Core website states, it is NOT a curriculum. It is intended to be able to be interpreted and used as the teacher/district sees fit to accommodate and adapt to local issues and diversity.

Two of the largest hindrances to the Common Core are the complaints about the difficulty especially for the kids on the lower end of the spectrum and the textbook companies that tend to monopolize on the idea of the Common Core. One of the my fellow classmates spoke to the idea of how expectations are often lowered for students in a basic classroom versus an advanced classroom. Research shows that when expectations are lowered, so are students results. Maybe the higher expectations are not a bad thing. I find that the changes in the curriculum are not necessarily too demanding, they just require the students to think critically instead of skills based and it will take time for the students to learn this way. As for the textbooks, districts, teachers, etc need to understand that a textbook company is out there to make money. It is still important for the staff to deconstruct standards, create a meaning for them based on their local level and determine how to teach the material. Maybe you use a textbook as a general source, but you may need to look beyond the textbook at some levels. A textbook is a resource, not an outline for a course. It is also important to know that even if the textbook claims to be aligned, that does not really mean it is. I have a textbook right now that is "aligned" to the Common Core and the Michigan Standards. The connections are a stretch and the material is all smashed together to create an impossible amount of material for one year. Educators are the experts, not the textbook companies.

Finally, the last big theme is the place of testing in the school system. I argued before that I do not think that there should be so much accountability placed on one test. There should also be some sort of acknowledgement to the different factors that are outside of school control that may impact education if it is going to be used as an accountability tool. However, a fellow classmate referred to Ken Robinson speaking of Finland schools and the low dropout rate they have because "testing supports learning and doesn't obstruct it." This seemed to be the key for me. I am doing this training with Assessment FOR Learning where a large part of the training is learning the appropriate times for formative vs. summative learning and how the final test is not the end all. It is a tool for the students and educators to see what still needs to be learned so it can be revisited and then retested. Not just looked at as accountability and then forging ahead.

TE 818: Theme 5- Standards, Measurement, and Testing

This week we were asked to read several articles about a common curriculum and testing. We also watched a TED talk where Ken Robinson speaks about No Child Left Behind and the disconnect between educational policy and the voice of students and teachers.

I started this week by reading the Made to Measure by Hoff. This I believe was the perfect starting point as it discusses the history of testing. Much of this knowledge was new to me and it was very interesting how tests have evolved over time from being a private tool used by administrators to gauge school success and has now transformed into a very public tool used for accountability for administrators and teachers. The article warns against the use of single tests for accountability purposes and the claim that tests do not always match up to the broad standards that are set by states. I find that I agree with the articles warning. I do believe that there should be some sort of accountability for schools to make sure that they are teaching students to high standards. However, I do not know how it is fair to use these standards for all children. In the article it states, “students’ family backgrounds and the socioeconomic makeup of their schools were more meaningful factors in student achievement than the quality of their schools.” There is no statement that I could believe more. So if we used a single test (the MEAP) to measure achievement between a low socioeconomic area plagued by problems within homes such as an inner city school versus a school in an affluent area where parents read, check their students homework, and teach their children skills that are needed to succeed in school it would almost definitely show that the teachers/administrators are not as competent as the teachers/administrators in the affluent area. When in reality the teachers in the low socioeconomic area may be working twice as hard to have meetings with parents and social workers, creating interventions to help keep students focused and attempt to battle conditions that are outside of the schools control, and trying to establish a close relationship with students so that they feel safe. Do not take this is as a stab at educators in affluent areas because they do work hard, and would do what all teachers are trained to do if they have the situations with students that arise in low socioeconomic areas, but I am stating that they may not have to deal with as many problems, their students overall are more prepared and mentally able to focus on the content, and there is more time to focus on delivery and instruction.

The next overwhelming idea to myself while reading through these articles is the idea of a common curriculum, the framework that is intertwined with our proposed national curriculum the Common Core, and the idea that a common curriculum and testing would lead to the classification of people and create a “hegemonic power” to overtake control taken by social movements.

Even with all the negative kickback that is associated with the Common Core I find that I still agree with the notion of the common curriculum. I personally believe that the negativity, especially from any teachers, mostly comes from the measurement using the testing that has been created for the Common Core particularly in New York. I do think it might be necessary to revisit the testing if it is not working, or possibly wait several years for our students to adapt to the changes and allow them to learn how to think the way the Common Core asks. However, there are a numerous amount of positives that go along with the national curriculum such as no gaps for students that move around, bringing the nation to the same standards and expectations k-12, and promoting the idea of critical thinking around broader ideas. Sleeter and Stillman quote a study by saying, “researchers came to considerable consensus about the most helpful instructional principals and processes, emphasizing the importance of contextualized rather than skill-driven instruction, and the connections between language, thinking, values, culture, and identity.” (30) I believe that the Common Core moves away from the skill-driven instruction that is currently upheld by using the Michigan Curriculum Framework. I am able to see as a math teacher how ideas are linked and themed throughout the 7^th grade and am able to move into a much deeper understanding rather than only focusing on the rote process of a skill before moving onto the next one. Although I find the positives in this process I find that the opposing views say that the common curriculum takes away from local control and takes away the progress made by social movements. I find both of these statements ridiculous. First, the framing of the Common Core is very adaptable to local curriculums. The standards focus on contextualized ideas and do not give prescriptive details for teachers to follow. Teachers are still able to use their expertise to decide delivery and assessment within their own classroom. I also do not understand how this would break down any social progress made through movements for race, sex, or any other minority group. There is still room in the curriculum to create problems, lessons, etc to teach about multiculturalism and have non gender biased questions. Books are not chosen in ELA classes nor topics.  Within the ELA class in the 7^th grade they have to learn how to write about Argument Writing. Nowhere does it say what they have to write about. This could easily be used as a way to talk about public policy around social policy.

Extension:
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/09/common_core_either_you_re_against_this_new_push_for_academic_standards_and.html
I found this article interesting when speaking of the Common Core. This author tries to take an unbiased approach at why there are pushbacks about the Common Core.

TE 818 Theme 4: Final Thoughts

Like I stated before I find the most important aspect of teaching (from my experience and perspective) is the development of objectives. It brings a focus and clarity to lessons for both the students and the teachers.  I mentioned in the past that I found some connections between what Tyler and Doll suggest for curriculum creation such as objectives (although Tyler's are concrete where Doll's are flexible for richness and rigor), reflection, and teaching to mastery. I find that though I agree it is important to be able to include the higher order thinking and creating a time for deeper learning, it is incredibly hard to be flexible with where these standards are heading like Doll presents with our current school structure. If a student is going to move up in class levels with different teachers it is hard to make content transitive rather than concrete. If it is possible then that would be the way to go. However, overall, I think the main importance is that there is a focus and the objectives are clear for the students to understand the focus and content.

I mentioned in my past reference that standards given by the state are not an entirely bad thing. I think the cons outweigh what would happen if schools were given free choice to teach what they want and when. However, it is important to include voices of educators within these decisions. I found an interesting article about how 11 educational leaders that were never teachers...extremely frustrating! It is important to keep all voices in mind with research to make curriculum choices.

I was asked about the common core and the ability to use the model of asking the students what they want to learn and then transforming it to meet the standards that are required by the state. I think that there is more of an ability to do this with the Common Core than there is with the Michigan State GLCE's. There are far fewer standards with the Common Core that focus on the ideal's of Doll which include depth, higher order thinking and Tyler's which includes processes and steps. With there being less standards it allows you to go in much more depth about a topic and actually allowing you to probably answer and extend more of what the children are wanting to learn. Granted, many teachers probably do not use this model often because there are mandated standards that they know they are going to teach, but this is a great teaching strategy to create an importance and reason for the students to learn. This is the closest a teacher can probably get the students to feel like they have a say in education.

Referring back to my quote "teaching is an interactive process with learning a by-product of that interaction. (Doll 271), I find this to speak to the actual classroom rather than just the standards created by curriculum creators. There is more to a classroom than the standards. Teachers still have choices in the classroom (in most places) as to how to teach content. How is it delivered, what collaborative experiences are going to be used, how are you assessing it in the classroom, and even what order are you teaching the content throughout the year. The interaction is seeing what the students are able to understand and adjusting the curriculum until the student meets the standard you are looking for and if time permits to create that richness to allow deeper knowledge for the future. However, I find it completely wrong for a state to mandate scripted curriculums that take away those choices from teachers. At that point you are disgracing their education and their ability to be the master's of their craft.

TE 818- Theme 4: Curriculum Creation

I chose this picture as my extension because I felt like this quote encompassed the whole idea behind curriculum creation. How do we create curriculum to benefit the children? What ways benefit the children the most?

While reading these articles I was again brought back to many basics we are taught as teachers. The first is developing objectives and bringing purpose to objectives. Tyler states, "We are devoting much time to the setting up and formulation of objectives because they are the most critical criteria for guiding all the other activities of the curriculum-maker." (62). I find as a teacher, policy-maker, administrator, or even a business person the objective is what sets the path. It is important to have a clear objective that is obtainable. Throughout many Professional Development trainings I have experienced such as Curriculum Instruction That Works and Assessment for Learning there is a large emphasis placed on creating objectives and the role they place in the classroom. Like this chapter, this P.D. experiences have had differing opinions about how to create the perfect objective and their place in the classroom. It must be important if the reading by Tyler was written in 1949 and it is still used as a resource for the background of objectives and their purpose in the classroom.

Tyler explains several viewpoints for objectives and I found that I agree with bits of all of them! The first viewpoint is "The Learners Themselves." This is about creating student centered goals based on their needs and interests. In my Middle Level Education program we learned that if a group of students is presented with a topic and asked what they want to learn about it, most of the time, the topics that need to be taught are proposed by the students, but then the student takes more interest and responsibility in the topic. However, this is not always the case from what I have learned from my professional experiences. However, I agree when Tyler states, "Educators recognize the value of beginning with present student interests as a point of departure."(11) When students are proposed with ideas and give feedback to the teacher there is always enough there to create bridges to the objectives required by the state. The next viewpoint was contemporary life. I feel like this is a given. If students are able to see a significance to their life in their learning they are naturally going to have more interest in their learning and attain more. Subject-Specialists are clearly what are objectives are created off of in the United States, but I love the question proposed, "What can your subject contribute to the education of young people who are not going to be specialists in your field" (26). I feel like this question is the question proposed to me almost daily in math classes. "When am I going to use this in real life?" I mean sometimes it is hard for me to come up with something. From the philosophy point of view I loved the quote, "An education program is not effective if so much is attempted that little is accomplished." (33) This is an ongoing problem in mathematics. Do I slow down for mastery or do I keep going so I can actually finish the objectives required of me? Either way you are putting students in an unfair situation somewhere.

In the article written by Doll Jr. I found that although it states it is an "alternative to the Tyler Rationale" it still seemed very similar. I loved how it compared the focus of past generations Readin', Ritin', and Rithmetic" to what it needs to be today. It is clear that objectives need to change with the times and with societies and technologies changing at an alarming rate it seems to be the question, what should the objectives for today societies be. In Doll's article he still speaks to the ideas of having significant objectives that are able to be interpreted in different directions based on student interests or connections to society. He speaks to the idea of reflections and teaching to mastery without overloading content. Overall, he sums the learning experience up best by quoting Dewey, "teaching is an interactive process with learning a by-product of that interaction. (271).

I again am left with the question, as are many others, what theory towards creating curriculum is the best? What combination would be best? However, I don't think there is one. I think it varies depending on each teacher and their beliefs and educational values they bring to the classroom. It may differ from classroom to classroom. However, it is important that when creating curriculum there is a clear answer to the four fundamentals of curriculum defined by Tyler:

1. What educational purposes should the school seek to attain?
2. What educational experiences can be provided that are likely to attain these purposes?
3. How can these educational experiences be effectively organized?
4. How can we determine whether these purposes are being attained?
   

However, even though I contemplate which combination would be best and I state that I think it depends on the classroom, it is out of the classrooms control. Objectives are currently a top-down approach and are out of the teacher or schools control most of the time.