🚀 go-pugleaf

As you point out below, you prefer to encourage student participation in
curriculum decisions to increase motivation. But in "negotiating" the
standards, I think that it is most likely that the standards would be very
different from what community standards would be. For example, the
community may think that students should have some knowledge of ancient
civilizations. Students, however, may think that ancient civilizations are
irrelevant. If  you are in a school supported by the community (taxes), how
will they (the community) know how much knowledge of ancient civilizations
the students have?

Standardized test have a lot to do with accountability to the community. As
such, they need to be as objective as possible. There is a place for
authentic assessment, but I think that the rationale for them is different
from that of standardized tests.

I also think that class size has something to do with the kind of practices
you suggest. I think that it is possible to use your strategies more easily
in smaller settings. Class size where I am, in California, is about 30-35
students per class. (I have to admit, though, that even if we had smaller
classes, I would not want the teachers in my school "negotiating"
curriculum and standards with the students. I'm a tad conservative, in case
that's not already apparent.)

I think we have different philosophies of ed and probably are going to
disagree on a number of issues.




I said:
>> One of
>> the criticisms of aa is that it can lead to a lowering of standards. Also
>> tends to be much more subjective than standardized tests.

To which you replied:
>I teach in a disadvantaged school, low socio-economic area. In my experience
>the things that help kids in these sorts of schools are not standardised tests
>(which only provides information that teachers already know) but things like
>------->>>>>
>
>** staffing the school with teachers who want to be there
>** giving the same group of kids the same teacher or teachers for two, threee
>or  more years in a row
>** curriculum integration
>** negotiated curriculum where students have some say or choice in what they
>learn -- ie. teacher offers a variety of choices and then develops ways of
>keeping track of what is going on in the room as kids work on different
>projects
>** kids are required to do some sort of "performance" at the end of a unit.
>** these assessment procedures -- self assessment, work required (means
>negotiated contract), descriptive,  NOT criterion referenced or norm referenced
>
>This sort of approach leads to increased motivation, involvement, participation
>and of hence higher standards. But the point is that in a genuine negotiation
>those standards cannot be clearly defined at the beginning because the students
>have a real input into what they are learning. In this sense the standards are
>negotiated too, not prepackaged. 
>
>



Dennis Dawson
Burlingame,CA
dawson@best.com