Standard Procedure
I had a long discussion with my Instructional Coach last Tuesday. It was one of those philosophical, deep-seated talks in which the aim of one or both of us is to enlighten the other. Needless to say, it was a doozy.
Earlier in the day, we'd had a faculty meeting in which we reviewed the data on MAP scores. The coach had a chart prepared that compared Ralph Chandler's test scores to those of Greenville County and the U.S.A. The data revealed that RCMS was behind the other two, and that 8th grade registered a notable decline from 6th and 7th grades.
The coach postulated that our focus needed to be on improving those test scores. The only way to do that, theoretically, was to make certain our class lessons integrated the state standards as much as possible. This would ensure our students learned the vocabulary of the standards through rote and recitation, which would translate into increased familiarity with the MAP and PASS in spring. The best ways to do this were to make sure our daily standards were outlined on the board or someplace noticeable in the classroom, as well as making our kids learn them, using the wording for every opportunity we have.
I raised the following question(s).
"How much of that decline is a result of teaching and learning becoming increasingly standardized as students get older? Once they get to 8th grade, the SAT is practically knocking on the door, and they have others such as ITBS and EOCEP to look forward to. As a result, the older students get, the more they sit in on lessons that hammer the standards into them like pistons. But if it is so vitally important to raise students' test scores, then shouldn't it be as a result of holistic, performance-based instruction and not an isolated, standardized take on the process as tests like MAP advocate?"
The coach looked flustered. He said outright that he had no idea what I was talking about. I suppose that was better than trying to, pardon my French, B.S. a response. I asked if I could explain. He then awkwardly tried to move on to another point in his talk. My questions hung in the air like pet odor. Unanswered.
My stance on standardized tests is no secret. I think it's a crippling measure when we make it the sole determining factor of how our students learn in the classroom. It sends the message that unless we spend 165 days of the year preparing them for a 1-2 week period of tests, we are shortchanging them an education.
In fact, it's the other way around. Hammering the standards into our kids serves to drain the lifeblood out of the class. It takes all the focus away from the creative, free-flowing, and natural process of learning - which I re-emphasize every day in my English Workshop - and puts it on memory. Absorption of facts and data have a place in the classroom - I'm not saying they don't - but they shouldn't take center stage.
Frankly, I resent the fact that I must give up a sizable portion of my whiteboard to write a new set of standards each day. Word for word. It isn't enough that we have to write the numbered indicators. Now we have to include the words themselves?
So my coach and I had a one-on-one meeting in my room toward the end of the day. He first apologized for, in his view, cutting me off in the faculty meeting. Which was certainly decent of him, but I didn't mind that so much. In retrospect, I probably should have waited until my fellow colleagues had departed before raising my issue. I knew that they were in no mood to hear it, and the only thing it accomplished was to make the meeting longer than it had to be.
His clarifying comments, however, made clear to me which side his bread was buttered on, though. It's not necessarily the best education, but it's what we've got, were his own words, and to oppose it is unpractical and a waste of time.
I told him the research doesn't support that way of thinking. Even brought up names like Weaver, Daniels, and Thomas. It was clear that he hadn't read up on the subject because he couldn't refute any of my arguments, and he didn't offer up any data of his own to back up his points. I had no real trouble disagreeing with him and felt comfortable in doing so. Not only because I had the facts on my side, but because I see what works in my class. Where it counts.
So I had my first philosophical argument on the job. Things are still unresolved. He did come to visit my class two days later and had mostly good things to say about my teaching. I'll keep you posted.
Earlier in the day, we'd had a faculty meeting in which we reviewed the data on MAP scores. The coach had a chart prepared that compared Ralph Chandler's test scores to those of Greenville County and the U.S.A. The data revealed that RCMS was behind the other two, and that 8th grade registered a notable decline from 6th and 7th grades.
The coach postulated that our focus needed to be on improving those test scores. The only way to do that, theoretically, was to make certain our class lessons integrated the state standards as much as possible. This would ensure our students learned the vocabulary of the standards through rote and recitation, which would translate into increased familiarity with the MAP and PASS in spring. The best ways to do this were to make sure our daily standards were outlined on the board or someplace noticeable in the classroom, as well as making our kids learn them, using the wording for every opportunity we have.
I raised the following question(s).
"How much of that decline is a result of teaching and learning becoming increasingly standardized as students get older? Once they get to 8th grade, the SAT is practically knocking on the door, and they have others such as ITBS and EOCEP to look forward to. As a result, the older students get, the more they sit in on lessons that hammer the standards into them like pistons. But if it is so vitally important to raise students' test scores, then shouldn't it be as a result of holistic, performance-based instruction and not an isolated, standardized take on the process as tests like MAP advocate?"
The coach looked flustered. He said outright that he had no idea what I was talking about. I suppose that was better than trying to, pardon my French, B.S. a response. I asked if I could explain. He then awkwardly tried to move on to another point in his talk. My questions hung in the air like pet odor. Unanswered.
My stance on standardized tests is no secret. I think it's a crippling measure when we make it the sole determining factor of how our students learn in the classroom. It sends the message that unless we spend 165 days of the year preparing them for a 1-2 week period of tests, we are shortchanging them an education.
In fact, it's the other way around. Hammering the standards into our kids serves to drain the lifeblood out of the class. It takes all the focus away from the creative, free-flowing, and natural process of learning - which I re-emphasize every day in my English Workshop - and puts it on memory. Absorption of facts and data have a place in the classroom - I'm not saying they don't - but they shouldn't take center stage.
Frankly, I resent the fact that I must give up a sizable portion of my whiteboard to write a new set of standards each day. Word for word. It isn't enough that we have to write the numbered indicators. Now we have to include the words themselves?
So my coach and I had a one-on-one meeting in my room toward the end of the day. He first apologized for, in his view, cutting me off in the faculty meeting. Which was certainly decent of him, but I didn't mind that so much. In retrospect, I probably should have waited until my fellow colleagues had departed before raising my issue. I knew that they were in no mood to hear it, and the only thing it accomplished was to make the meeting longer than it had to be.
His clarifying comments, however, made clear to me which side his bread was buttered on, though. It's not necessarily the best education, but it's what we've got, were his own words, and to oppose it is unpractical and a waste of time.
I told him the research doesn't support that way of thinking. Even brought up names like Weaver, Daniels, and Thomas. It was clear that he hadn't read up on the subject because he couldn't refute any of my arguments, and he didn't offer up any data of his own to back up his points. I had no real trouble disagreeing with him and felt comfortable in doing so. Not only because I had the facts on my side, but because I see what works in my class. Where it counts.
So I had my first philosophical argument on the job. Things are still unresolved. He did come to visit my class two days later and had mostly good things to say about my teaching. I'll keep you posted.
posted by david @ 11:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home