|
|
| Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success (896349) | |||
 |
|||
| 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 Concourse Express on Sat Jan 7 00:00:38 2012, in response to Re: OP-ED: What Americans keep ignoring about Finland's school success, posted by 3-9 on Thu Jan 5 04:15:30 2012. 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.Clearly exams should be structured around curricula and not the other way around. However, if you reform the curricula without reforming the tests, you could run into problems - namely, students taking an exam that's (potentially) unrelated to the curriculum and thus an ineffective barometer with which one can measure their progress. That said, this is a more of a transition problem (i.e. "teething" problems, as is said regarding implementation of new ideas)... 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. Cooperation IS key. If there is a disconnect between the teachers and higher-level officials - and especially between them and the students - it could interfere with the learning process. While a student's cognitive ability will be the main driver of their learning potential, having teachers that don't (or perhaps aren't allowed to) challenge them academically will not exercise the full potential of said cognitive ability. 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. It's a mixture of both; budget cuts are the main driver of music/arts/extracurricular cuts or reductions, while rigorous testing requirements (and the fact that teachers' jobs/pay depend on the results of these tests) cause many teachers to "teach to the test;" oftentimes parts of gen ed curricula (sometimes even important ones) are sacrificed in favor of test prep. While the current testing system provides a common barometer, it is inadequate; as JayMan and I were discussing, the tests are actually easier than before (a lowering of standards), which prevents particularly gifted students from being challenged as they should (i.e. through higher-level coursework). 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. Strengthen/enrich the curricula, then design tests to match the curricula and adequately test what students have learned. This also means reducing the number of standardized tests students may receive per year; note that I'm not advocating a complete elimination of testing or even standardized tests - only higher standards and less emphasis on said tests. 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. There's no doubt that he has tried, though the results have been mixed. Between the cheating scandals and the lowered standards, I tend to be skeptical of results which suggest "significant improvements" (especially due to testing). Now don't get me wrong - some improvements may be legit, but a system which stunts learning isn't the most effective IMHO. my blog |
|
(There are no responses to this message.)
|
|