High Stakes High School and Raising the Bar

So in Ed Psych we did a little role play thing. We had an imaginary school district with a school board, a superintendent and a curriculum director, concerned parents of both high and low acheiving students, a teacher's union, local business owners, and of course the tax payers. The goal of this role play was to talk over and present opinions about a change in the district standards. I'd actually say it was more than just a change, more like an overhaul. The new plan for the imaginary school district was based solely on No Child Left Behind. In fact, it was the epitome of No Child Left Behind. Obviously, at a liberal arts school, most of us were opposed to this plan. I was part of the teacher's union and got to put in my few cents against it for a few minutes but since we were on a time restraint, my professors, Dr. Langholz and Dr. Knick, stopped asking for questions. This is why I'm thankful for the opportunity to blog.

First of all, I'm all for raising the bar. We all should strive for acheivement. That's why I want to be a teacher. I don't like the idea of a bar though. Not everybody's arms are the same length so not everyone can reach it. If you raise standards that some students already can't acheive, what good will it do? If a student is doing all s/he can to acheive the goals presented and continually fails, why on earth would that student continue trying? A focus on personal goals as compared to national goals would benefit the students more. Meeting a personal goal can raise self esteem and self concept and thus raise a student's drive to succeed and in the end, learn more.

Second of all, standardized tests focus on only certain types of learning. Most (if not all) focus on logical-mathematical and linguistic intelligences but there are six other types of intelligence (as defined by Wolfolk) that are totally ignored. These are musical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalist intelligences. With standardized testing, if a student does poorly with logical-mathematical and linguistic intelligences, then that student must do poorly overall. This SHOULD NOT be and IS NOT the case.

The last thing that I wanted to say was in response to something Dr. Knick said. With all of us listing off reasons why this proposal would be destructive to the district, Dr. Knick said that what it comes down to is that we didn't trust our students. We didn't put our full trust in our students to meet the requirements set in place. What I got from the proposal, with the need for teachers to submit lesson plans weekly and the need for teachers to attend seminars on what to teach and how to teach it, is that the school board doesn't trust the teachers. As a teacher, I would have complete faith that every student can succeed, and a student's success should based on what that student is capable of and not what other students and the rest of the country are capable of. That should be the focus of every teacher. Teachers also should not be motivated by pay bonuses. I don't think there's a person out there who wants to be a teacher for the money and an extra $1000 if students meet "national standards"? I'm sorry but that just makes me laugh.

:)