Article I mentioned in class!
I liked the exercise of substitution the institution of education for the topic of "morality" in the article we read for Thursday. It was a really helpful way to develop insight in a philosophical sense and see how much philosophy is really integrated into our societal institutions. During class, I really liked the observation that: the process of subject formation, engaging at a certain level, yet punished for misbehavior or failure to learn based on the institutional practices instilled. In other words, students will feel they cannot possibly give any more and say they'll only do the minimum to continue on and their conditions are ultimately fearful. However this didn't just happen overnight. We perpetuate this through our neglect of this process of subject formation that is ultimately shaped by our environment. I also wanted to include a really great quote from the Saar reading:
"But most social and cultural institutions and practices shape and guide human conduct and self-identification and in that way leave traces in the way human actors are constituted by them. So what Nietzsche has done for [morality], can easily be done for less visible forms of (not only moral, but cultural, political, bodily, economic, etc.) "self-making'" (Saar 302).
Also, as I had mentioned in class, there is a trend of "assisting" students to obtain better grades on standardized texts. This assistance ranges from erasure parties to leaning over a student's shoulder as they mark in their tests. I found this article particularly interesting because it also points out the greediness of the teachers in their efforts to better themselves, not the students. What is the better option here? For the teacher to try to save their job? Is teaching to the test taking over the minds of teachers? I just don't know. It's back there in my mind, but if you're a great teacher and you have the right activities and teaching methods, you should be developing students who are able to critically think and indeed perform well.
It's had to try to be a good teacher if one cannot even keep his/her job. I still believe that a truly good student with conceptual knowledge will do well on the test, anyway.
ReplyDeleteIf a student is smart, then he/she can do well on the test. This is in contrast to the philosophy of the state, which is the converse: If the student does well on the test, then he/she is smart. How else did Sarah Palin make it through High School?
You and I discussed in class how it is given that students are the product of the institution, and only rarely is the institution ever formed as a result of how the students function. Very poor test scores ought to tell the state that something is wrong on the STATE's part, but this does not seem to be the case.
Teaching to the test is a terrible rut that some teachers can get in to if they are simply lacking in creativity. I remember specifically a comment that was made in a curricullum class I had a few years ago: If you teach well and engage your students, you do not have to worry about teaching to the test. Think about it. Check the student scores at the best high school institutions in the Cleveland area and in the schools where the salaries are perhaps highest and the expectations of teacher creativity is great. What are their scores? Are there remedial classes necessary here. The answer in large part is a resounding "NO!" Great teachers are not those participating in "erasure parties." They would be better advised in spending their time learning how to teach better, observing master teachers and better connect with their students than participating in illegal activities that only serve to denigrate further the field of education.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Kennan's last paragraph and the comments: Oh the joys of high stakes testing!
ReplyDeleteKennan, I thought of you when I read this article on the internet because you’d told us about the erasure parties in class. In early July, the Reuters news service reported that 178 employees of the Atlanta Schools (mainly teachers and principals) were under investigation for cheating on standardized tests. The cheating included an erasure party. The article said, “‘A culture of fear, intimidation and retaliation existed in Atlanta Public Schools, which created a conspiracy of silence,’ the state report concluded” (qtd. in Beasley 1). People don’t vote for school levies when scores are bad. Job loss causes fear.
There’s a difference between teaching to the test and teaching how to take the test. To me, teaching to the test means only teaching information and concepts that are on the test and nothing else of value. Teaching how to take the test can be good teaching because kids can be traumatized by sitting through a 2.5 hour test that they don’t know how to complete. Or imagine if students knew the information, but failed because they didn’t know how to attack the twists & turns of the test! Michael’s successful districts have probably figured out the twists & turns too. Written responses need to be just a certain way If gifted kids write too much, for example, they lose points. Other questions have certain twists to them too. I liked what Aaron said, that scores may be more indicative of what’s wrong on the state’s part.
Mostly, I know it’s in vain, but I just wish we could go back to those long-gone days when teachers taught important and relevant information using the most creative methods possible. I love to think of Kennan teaching her 19th century literature with the same freedom and joy as her 11th grade teacher!
Beasley, David. "Prosecutors to Review Widespread Cheating in Atlanta Schools."
Reuters US. Reuters, 6 July 2011. Web. 9 July 2011. .