October 1, 2007
Dear Congressman Garrett,
As an educator and resident, I have been affected by NCLB legislation. This powerful and quasi-effective law has made schools change the manner in which they do business. Some of the changes have perhaps improved the quality of instruction provided to our students and future leaders. Qualifying that all teachers be highly qualified improves the expertise in the classroom; here, as an educator and citizen, I applaud the efforts of the aforementioned educational legislation. Also, the pressure created by this legislation has caused many schools to organize in a more efficient manner; moreover, the unreasonable standards may have increased the quality of work that is being promoted in the classroom. I believe parents may also feel as if this type of classroom accountability improves the instruction provided to their youth.
With Regard the re authorization of NCLB, I have some concerns; in fact, it just does not make sense. First, the goal of 100% proficiency is almost absurd. There are too many factors that render this goal impossible to achieve. Special Needs and ESL students are required to be proficient but may be receiving different instruction and materials in their resource classrooms; are those teachers as highly qualified as those teaching regular education? Moreover, these students are required to pass a test that is not designed for them; having more time is not an adequate accommodation. If we are to re authorize this legislation, then I recommend that we make sure that the resource curricula provide the necessary materials for passing the exam, in my case the HSPA. Also, is there a way that different forms of the test be created that suit the major learning disabilities?
Also, the curriculum for regular education students is not geared for the exam. Some teachers are just teaching to the test, while dismissing important learning experiences because they do not match the test's parameters. Yes, they are doing their job; do you think that eliminating vital learning experiences displays accountability? The curricula should be similar (if not exact) to those of other districts in the state. Are they not taking the same exam?
Although I have made some recommendations for editing, I believe the whole idea should be scrapped. I don't think it works at improving acquisition and learning. We should instead try to create legislation that certifies success and uses the "highly qualified" teachers as a tool. Portfolios, oral evaluations, long term projects and problem solving activities can be a better measure of students' ability to function successfully in the world. Is that not what we really want to prepare them for? Here, the teachers themselves would be the evaluators of progress and proficiency. What's the point of having highly qualified teachers if you cannot use their qualifications and trust their judgement.
In the above mentioned ideas, curriculum would be written under a problem solving lens, while promoting cooperative learning, differentiated instruction, problem solving, and higher order thinking. Also, since the evaluations would be created by people within the school and community culture, bias would not stifle a students success.
If NCLB is scrapped, the monies that were once allocated for it can be used for legislation that embraces the student as a learner and not a test taker, while promoting teachers as truly highly qualified.
Thank you for your time and consideration
Best,
Joseph F. Materia
Teacher of World Languages/ESL
Dumont High School
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think that the point you make about the tests not being aligned to the curriculum is very important. Too many teachers and students are spending valuable learning time trying to master test taking skills. Although we may debate the purpose of school and curriculum, I think that we can all agree that the purpose of our educational system is NOT to teach children how to take a test.
As much as educators try not to teach to the test it is hard not to. There is so much on standarized test that children need to know. In order to be prepared for it some educators rearrange their curriculum or double up on certain topics in order to make sure that their children are ready when that test comes around. This test can be all consuming at times.
While I agree with most of your points, expecially the alinement of the test to the curriculum issue, I have been lately questioning the "highly qualified" teacher theory. Sure as a theory it makes sense for the learned must have a wide knowledge of the curiculum he/she is teaching, yet it doesn't seem to work that easily in an equation. "highly qualified teachers" as defined by the state does not equal excellence in teaching. Teaching is an art form and the most imortant ingrediant is passion and a true connection with the age group one is teaching. It can not be quantified.
I left this post for a classmates, since we are saying testing isn't a true measure, how can it (The praxis) be a true measure of a good teacher?
Post a Comment