trolling the bright waters of the internet
I would have to say that theres been a strong correlation between teachers that "teach to the test" and teachers that have had little influence on my actual education. People often associate their favorite classes with a certain subject, "Oh, I love math/history/english/science," I find that my interesting classes: Language and Composition, European History, Principles of Technology, are categorized as interesting because of the teacher. When I learn something in those classes, its not retained by pure memorization, necessitated by "the test." I retain the concepts and information because its presented in ways that a "test teacher" just doesn't have time for. I would love to see less tests, and more control by the actual teacher. Students don't want to listen to a talking text book, and more importantly I'm not convinced that they learn that way.
Thanks, anonymous, for saying what I would've if I weren't satirizing.
I'd also lord over the fact that I teach in a rock-solid socioeconomic area, where kids perform better on tests pretty well no matter what I do with them. And I can pretend I'm better than my colleague slogging it out with poorer kids--and struggling for less results.Why would anyone teach in a tough school with such an arrangement?
teacherrefpoet: because (if I understand it correctly) the bill proposes to track *improvement.* There's much more room for improvement in underperforming schools.I think that if the test is a good test, there's nothing wrong with "teaching to" it.Take a look at some of those tests: the New York State Regents, for example. I think you will agree that a teacher who hasn't (somehow) taught what's on those tests hasn't done his or her job.I also think that such a system might offer *more,* not less, flexibility: "If my students are improving," a teacher can say to the administration, "don't micromanage my classroom."
Post a Comment