This week we are looking at what schools should teach and
how they should be held accountable. As a teacher these questions often come up but
I never feel that I myself can answer these questions. This is because a teacher’s opinion on this
subject usually seems to not matter. It
is the government, the district, or school administration that tells us what to
teach in our classrooms and how we will be held accountable. I teach from the standards set for my grade
level. I am supposed to teach using the
curriculum picked out by my principal or district administration and I am
judged as a good teacher or not based on how my students do on a test picked
out by the state, the district, or in my case now, the principal. I have always felt that there is a problem
with this. The people who are telling me
what to teach and how to teach are not in my classroom. They are not working with my students. They are not a witness to the challenges or
to the accomplishments that take place each day. It is for this reason that I believe that
these questions, “what should schools teach and how should they be held
accountable”, should have a teachers input when being answered.
The readings this week looked at many different viewpoints
on what should be taught in schools. We
were able to learn about a middle school that teaches through video games or a
high school that focuses on teaching students about their possible vocation. These ideas are interesting. I am sure they get kids excited about
learning and school, but I also believe they work for specific kids only. As a person who has never really gotten into
video games, nor have I ever been very good at them, I’m not sure I would be as
excited about learning through that process.
Whereas the students that attend that school thrive from the experiences
they are having, I am not sure that I myself would succeed. The
vocational high schools are great, assuming that the students know what their
passion and future career choice is going to be. I have a few friends who are in their late
20s still trying to figure that out. The
point I am trying to make is that each student is different. It is a wonderful idea to offer a different
choice to our regular school setting, but I don’t think that these choices can
be a complete replacement. There are
students who thrive in the schools that they go to now. Those students may not want a change.
Another question that arose in my mind while learning about
these schools was what about Elementary schools? How do we get the younger students excited
about learning? The Studio School and
Quest to Learn are not offered to the Elementary age. I have worked in three different school
districts and three different grade levels.
I have had students, even in Kindergarten, that were already unmotivated
and had no drive to learn. How are those
students reached? To me the answer is
something that my school is working towards right now, differentiated
instruction using the multiple intelligences.
The focus is to plan lessons that try to reach each student’s interest
and learning style. It allows the teacher
to engage their students in reading, writing, math, science, and social studies
in a way that will directly relate to them.
It takes a lot of work and time.
It forces the teacher to really get to know their students and what
makes them work. This idea to teaching
gives way to things such as blogging, creating games, making up a cheer or a
play. It allows the students to make
choices and have a say in their own learning.
It is also something that can be used for all age levels. I can tell that my students are more engaged
in my phonics lesson during small group when they are playing a game on my
ipad. They have also been more
encouraged to do their spelling homework because they can choose how to practice
their words each night. At the end of
the day the most important thing is to have students who learn. Any idea that creates that is a good one to
me.
This website is about differentiated instruction. It tells you what the program is and how to
use it. It also gives resources and
events, as well as introduces you to one of the people who wrote a book about
this topic. You can find workshops to go
to on this website as well as set up to have them come talk at your school.
This article looks at the use of philosophy in a school
curriculum. It is an interview with
Matthew Lipman, who believes that teaching philosophy is “the best answer to
the call for teaching critical thinking.”
Katelyn,
ReplyDeleteWhen reading your post, I totally agreed with your point that you feel like it is nice to be asked what we feel should be taught and how we should be held accountable, but ultimately it is not our choice. You are so right. Content standards and teacher evaluation tools for educators are being constantly changed and updated since there is no real agreement, on any level, as to what they should include. Opinions of what is relevant and “good practice” in education is constantly evolving and school districts as well as the state are quick to jump into the latest fad in education. I always say that our profession has little stability, and that goes for all areas including what we teach and how we are evaluated.
I think that you are correct when you say that the Quest for Learning schools, which use video games as their main teaching tool, are a pretty specific method that would not cater to the learning styles of all children. I believe that video games could be a wonderful tool to make learning more relevant and engaging for kids, but it is not the ultimate solution to education. It is simply another tool to put into the bag of tricks of how to engage and motivate more kids to want to learn.
The idea of the Studio Schools is one that I feel is very interesting. On one hand, like you said, they help students figure out possible future careers, passions, interests, etc., but on the other hand, I also feel that while given opportunities to explore, students should also not be tunneled into a choice or not allowed to just be kids. In my middle school, beyond the core subject areas, students are given what we call exploratories; short courses, not the full grading trimester, where they can get a feel for different topics such as art, computers, world languages, wood shop, and so on to see what they enjoy. The problem with this, however, is that more and more exploratories are being cut to make way for more required curriculum in classes like math and science required by the state. The electives are the first things to go in the educational world we live in now to make way for curriculum that the state believes is more important.
The final topic of teacher evaluation is probably the most controversial. I agree with you Katelyn that teachers should have more input. The problem is that no one can agree on if or how teacher evaluations should even be done and it has become, in the state of Michigan and in my school district, a complete and utter mess. My biggest opposition to the idea of teacher evaluation tools is that every single one I have ever been a part of is completely subjective and since I am a believer that if you have nothing nice to say you should say nothing at all, I am going to leave it at that. Thanks for your post Katelyn!
Kristi
Hi Katy,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post. I enjoyed it a lot.
First off, I think you are right to start this post by pointing out that all of these changes are being driven by people who are not teachers. That teacher expertise is rarely invoked, much less taken to heart. Really, though, not even a committee of teachers should be allowed to speak for the whole profession. That's why I think professional learning communities are so important. As a group of colleagues, I think we would be much better off making these decisions about what to teach and how to hold each other accountable (this is what happens for professors at most universities, and I can assure you it feels pretty rigorous!).
I'm glad you raised concerns about both Studio Schools and Q2L. I offered them not as solutions, but as experiments that raise interesting issues. There are students who are being well served right now. There are some who are not. Standardization makes the task of creating different learning opportunities for different learners more difficult.
What I do like about Studio Schools especially is there form of accountability. They are accountable to the businesses they work with. I think we could do a lot more in terms of having kids perform authentic tasks that are actually needed within the community. That is a more natural form of accountability. You realize that if you don't do your work, there are real consequences, not just for you, and your peers, but for the business and their clients too.
All that said, you are also right to think about this on an elementary level, and what more flexibility in terms of what we teach might look like. I think differentiation is a powerful movement that could help reform schools in a very positive way--especially when we do it around interests as well as abilities (differentiating only to student weakness--low, middle and high ability groups--would be a bit depressing after a while).
So I guess one thing I would still ask: what is the social value of the work your students do. Can kindergarteners contribute to their communities (schools, neighborhoods, cities) in ways that might extend their learning? I think those are also some of the issues raised in the readings this week.
Thank you for your post!
Kyle