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.
No comments:
Post a Comment