|
|
| Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success (895537) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Jan 5 04:15:30 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by Concourse Express on Wed Jan 4 22:08:31 2012. Here now, I only said that excessive focus on standardized testing should be abandoned, not that there should be no barometer to measure progress. And I maintain this position - excessive focus on testing results in stripped curricula that ill prepares our students. While I'd retain some testing, standards must be raised, and curricula must contain more depth than "reading, writing, and 'rithmetic." More in-depth lessons. Sciences. Labs. The arts. Extracurricular activities. Opportunities to be creative, as opposed to the current rudimentary setup.I agree that the tests do not cover the full scope of what a student should be learning. However, since I'm proposing a top-down approach, the tests should be the last part to change. Improve the administration, teachers, curricula, then the tests, which ideally, the students would then ace. And how do we make teaching "a worthwhile profession" while problems such as stripped curricula, overcrowded classrooms, and rambunctious students remain unsolved? Worse still, some of these issues are outside of the teachers' control. Even better pay and benefits (which I support) wouldn't mean much if teachers aren't allowed to expand curricula beyond that needed to ace a damn test. I agree, better pay and benefits aren't enough by themselves. Unfortunately, I don't know enough of the details of what goes on inside the schools to know what will make teaching "a worthwhile profession", but I have a hint based on what Sahlberg said. He mentioned "cooperation" which to me implies something like a "small business" or a "team" mentality. From my experience, people in a close, well-run team will have a higher morale than someone who's just a member of a massive, faceless bureaucracy, kind of like the current Board of Ed. As for expanding the curricula, is it the standardized testing requirement that's preventing it, or is it the budget (including inefficiencies, corruption, etc.)? Though I don't keep up on the news coming from the Board of Ed, it seems to me the usual reason for cutting a program is budget not irrelevancy. If anything, at least the current tests make sure there is some kind of concrete goal that teachers have to aim for. I agree that principals should ensure that teachers are doing their jobs properly and efficiently, but if we're gonna measure merit, let's look at how much students are learning and understanding/successfully applying (i.e. in later courses) as opposed to solely what they score on an exam. Unfortunately, an exam (or series of exams) are the only way to measure it/put a number on it/etc. If there's a better objective method, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, I agree with what you're saying. I think also that Bloomberg has actually tried to make some of those top-down reforms, by trying to inject new teachers and introducing changes on how the schools work via the charter schools. It would also help if that bureaucracy would be a little more helpful for once and run some interference on the teachers' behalf. |
|
|
|