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.