The curricular constraints of high-stakes testing become even more challenging for teachers of American Indian children or children of poverty. McCarty (2008) discusses:
In practice, these activities are highly constrained by rigid and punitive
accountability system that fails to consider improvements over previous
performance, is blind to racial discriminating and attendant school funding
performance, is blind to racial discriminating and attendant school funding
inequities, and uses English standardized tests as the sole measure of proficiency.
Research shows that high-stakes accountability measures such as those in NCLB
lead schools to increase special education placements, preemptively retain students
deemed at risk of test failure, and sideline “low stakes” subjects not covered on
the test. (McCarty, 2008, p. 2)
Standard based testing promotes a “one-size-fits-all” curriculum making it difficult for teachers to connect education to the lives of children in their communities. Schools become increasingly boring and draws attention away from the children’s social, mental, and physical well being. Realistically standards can be raised only by changes that are put into direct effect by teachers and pupils in classrooms. “Teachers must attempt to remedy any accountability system that’s having a negative effect on their teaching” (Popham, 2009, p. 157). In order to do so, teachers need a strong understanding of their standardized assessments, their reliability, and validity. Popham (2009) believes teachers should always try to educate themselves and others about the standardized assessment approach they and their children are being exposed to and conceptualizing evidence in supporting its worth. Likewise, teachers of American Indian children should continually speak out about the cultural insensitivity of standardized assessment items and continue to educate others about these insensitivities’. A more logical strategy would be for schools systems and their teachers to critically appraise the credibility of high stakes exams and to identify the limitations of these measures; then begin to view them as a means of improving the delivery of curricula to increase student learning within the school systems where they teach.
Popham (2009) regards classroom assessments as formative only if the use of those assessments leads to actual adjustments in what is going on in the classroom. He concludes that by doing so an ends-means approach can show improvements over previous performance of standardized assessments if teachers appropriately follow four fundamental categories: (1) curriculum determination, (2) instructional design, (3) instructional monitoring, and (4) instructional evaluation. Black and Wiliam (1998) whose research concluded that formative classroom assessment is an essential component of classroom work and that its development can raise standards of achievement.
The lack of curricular clarity and the many curricular aims arranged around the many state standards, which are to be cover over an academic year, can be overwhelming for teachers. A more realistic approach to curriculum determination is to wisely choose curricular aims which can be taught for mastery, can be integrated across the disciplines and then monitored and reinforced throughout the school year. A standards based curriculum approach involves knowledge of the content standards (the end) and includes an understanding of the student’s social, emotional, physical and cultural selves in the devising of curriculum. Instruction needs to clearly state what you want the learner to be able to accomplish, and teach them how to accomplish it (the means). Curricular determination based on an “ends-means” approach consists of continuously monitoring and tracking how curricular choices have worked over time and determine how instruction has affected student outcomes on standardized measures.
The lack of curricular clarity and the many curricular aims arranged around the many state standards, which are to be cover over an academic year, can be overwhelming for teachers. A more realistic approach to curriculum determination is to wisely choose curricular aims which can be taught for mastery, can be integrated across the disciplines and then monitored and reinforced throughout the school year. A standards based curriculum approach involves knowledge of the content standards (the end) and includes an understanding of the student’s social, emotional, physical and cultural selves in the devising of curriculum. Instruction needs to clearly state what you want the learner to be able to accomplish, and teach them how to accomplish it (the means). Curricular determination based on an “ends-means” approach consists of continuously monitoring and tracking how curricular choices have worked over time and determine how instruction has affected student outcomes on standardized measures.
Effective teachers continually practice reflective skills and of equal importance effective teachers continually practice forecasting skills. Instructional design not based on instruction-influenced assessment is exclusive of forecasting a directed learning aim (the end), and is not leading to mastery learning (the means). According to Gusky (2003), the most modern applications of mastery learning stems from the writings of Benjamin S. Bloom. Bloom believes a far better approach to teaching would be using classroom assessment as a learning tool through the process of formative assessment along with the systematic correction of the individuals learning through reflection. In order to do so, teachers need to comprehend the curricular aim and forecast to build the instructional framework/lessons, including learning checkpoints, to assure students are progressing toward the intended aims. The major goal of mastery learning is to take the learner beyond knowledge and comprehension during the progression of lessons targeting curricular aims. Instruction, including clearly written behavioral objectives with focus on the progression of curricular aims, provides students with an understanding of their learning. It also provides the teacher insight into student progression towards the curricular aim. Behavioral objectives built around a degree of proficiency provide teachers evidence of the value of their instruction too. Again, teachers and their instructional designs which do not acknowledge the child’s social, mental, and physical well being are deemed to fail. For the American Indian learner, instructional design, which does not make cultural connections, draws away from the child’s active involvement in the classroom.
Classroom management cannot be separate from instructional design, lesson presentation and instructional monitoring. Doug Lemov, a successful educator, believes that “students can’t learn unless the teacher succeeds in capturing their attention and getting them to follow instructions.” Lemov states “A teacher’s control, he said repeatedly, should be “an exercise in purpose, not in power” (Green, 2010, p. 6, 7). To capture student’s attention and to invite them to take part in their learning, students should be informed of the curricular aim, know what their expected behavior should be during their learning, and be aware of the means of evaluation. Popham (2009) suggests that teachers provide in their lessons illustrative student performances in the form of past student examples both good and not so good. Following a formal written lesson plan format, effective teachers give students the focus of the lesson in the form of goals or objectives, include a warm-up activity, an effective lesson introduction, and provide a guided practice, an independent practice, closure and evaluation.
As students are being assessed, so are teachers. A traditional teacher evaluation model is conducted by a school principal, and typically happens at the conclusion of the school year to determine teacher renewal or nonrenewal. Traditional teacher evaluations can be more beneficial to the school and the teacher by encouraging teacher leadership. The development of teacher leadership, consisting of experienced teachers with expertise in particular areas of school improvement, and can bring about effective changes within school commuities. Popham (2009) favors a professional judgment approach for teacher evaluation, evolving experienced teacher reviewers addressing the following areas:
1. Student’s performances on classroom tests
2. Students’ affective status as measured by self-report inventories
3. Students’ scores on standardized achievement tests
4. Administrator’s ratings of teacher skills
5. Systematic observation of a teacher’s classroom activities
6. Anonymous student ratings of their teachers
7. Teachers self-appraisals
Over a traditional model, this plan reinforces teacher leadership and aims towards a realistic means of improving the quality of teachers who are already teaching. Schools with a high teacher turnover may benefit from this model by retaining their teachers. This system promotes a professional learning community bringing forth teacher dialogue about children based on real issues found within school systems. It includes an infrastructure of working together that result in continuous school improvement. In a professional judgment model, teacher evaluation is the “ends”, while the teacher evaluation outcome can lead to the “means” in which determines curricular modifications for the upcoming school year.
By understanding the content of state assessments and interpreting their results provides schools and their teachers an ends. It is at this point in which schools and their teachers can devise a means to be accountable for standard based teaching. Continual school wide dialogue based around a growth model targeting curriculum, instructional design, instructional monitoring, and evaluation will provide school accountability for standard based teaching. Initiating a school wide approach driven by critical pedagogy, centered around students outcomes on standardized assessments has greater potential of determinging school and teacher accountability. The culmination of standard based teaching and their student’s outcomes on state standard assessments should be reviewed yearly by teachers to assist in their further refinement of the curriculum and to become insightful of their teaching. In this case it is the teachers and students who monitor the evolving curriculum over time. Critical pedagogy includes the process of "unlearning", "learning", and "relearning", "reflection", "evaluation", and the impact that these actions have on the students” (Wikipedia). School and teacher improvement will not happen over night it will be a process were schools and their teachers continually unlearn, learn and relearn through reflection and evaluation over time.
References
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Phi Delta Kappa International. Retrieved January 28, 2013,
Green, E. (2010, March 2). Building a better teacher. Retrieved January 29, 2013, from
nytimes.com/2010/03/07/magazine/07Teachers-t.html
Gusky, T. (2003). Mastery learning. Retrieved January 28, 2013, from http://www.education.
com/reference/article/mastery-learning/
Letap, A. (2008). Standards-based education: Does it really work. Retrieved January 27, 2013, from http://socyberty.com/education/standards-based-education-does-it-reallywork /#ixzz2KYvTZAI4
McCarty, T. L. (2008). American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian education in the era of standardization and NCLB - an introduction. Journal of American Indian Education, 1-9 Print.
Letap, A. (2008). Standards-based education: Does it really work. Retrieved January 27, 2013, from http://socyberty.com/education/standards-based-education-does-it-reallywork /#ixzz2KYvTZAI4
McCarty, T. L. (2008). American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian education in the era of standardization and NCLB - an introduction. Journal of American Indian Education, 1-9 Print.
Minds of Our Own. (1995). Retrieved January 20, 2013, from http://www.learner. org/resources/series26.html#program_descriptions
(n.d.). Retrieved January 29, 2013, from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_pedago
gy
Popham, W. J. (2009). Instruction that measures up. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Print
No comments:
Post a Comment