(whoops..) *Ninth* Post: <|=+ TALKING POINTS +=|> Johnson & Richer - PARCC
Johnson and Richer report that according to their poll of 298 Rhode Island teachers, the PARCC test creates a negative learning environment and proves overwhelmingly detrimental to students' well-being; in support of this opinion, the authors argue that the benefits and implementation of the test are also questionable.
1. I wanted to like the Common Core. I left teaching before it was introduced, and came back just as the wave was cresting - I want to believe in tenets, or skills, that a wide variety of content can ride on comfortably and still achieve the same objective. I thought the CCS were easier to navigate than the RI(B/P)TS and more focused on critical thinking, which wasn't a feature of my own grammar school learning but is one that I think complements all of existence (especially within the realm of social justice). Does anyone else agree the "idea" itself, of defining and teaching skills, and - if testing is absolutely essential - and giving students novel material to assess accordingly? Isn't that what we do already?
2. "Hold public conversations with teachers and parents regarding the problems with
PARCC, with the goal of finding solutions or abandoning the test altogether" What are the "repercussions" for abandoning the test? Is it possible to implement a state-wide strike over something like this? (I apologize if that question sounds absurd, I am not nor have I ever been in the union, so I don't really understand how the union operates!)
3. I am curious what the particular conditions of the minority (those who responded as overall positive or neutral) might be? What made their experience so different?
1. I wanted to like the Common Core. I left teaching before it was introduced, and came back just as the wave was cresting - I want to believe in tenets, or skills, that a wide variety of content can ride on comfortably and still achieve the same objective. I thought the CCS were easier to navigate than the RI(B/P)TS and more focused on critical thinking, which wasn't a feature of my own grammar school learning but is one that I think complements all of existence (especially within the realm of social justice). Does anyone else agree the "idea" itself, of defining and teaching skills, and - if testing is absolutely essential - and giving students novel material to assess accordingly? Isn't that what we do already?
2. "Hold public conversations with teachers and parents regarding the problems with
PARCC, with the goal of finding solutions or abandoning the test altogether" What are the "repercussions" for abandoning the test? Is it possible to implement a state-wide strike over something like this? (I apologize if that question sounds absurd, I am not nor have I ever been in the union, so I don't really understand how the union operates!)
3. I am curious what the particular conditions of the minority (those who responded as overall positive or neutral) might be? What made their experience so different?
Comments
Post a Comment