🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 4 Aug 1995, Dennis Dawson wrote:

> 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. Accountability!? You would have to be joking! Standardised tests
have less to do with > > 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 accountability than they have to do with control. How is
it being accountable when we try to reduce what children learn and what
they can do to grades and scores on tests or whatever other instrument of
measurement we try to devise?  It is verging on the criminal when we blur
the differences among, and uniquenesses of, children by imposing some
outside standard or measure because we think that is what they ought to
know or be able to do.  When tests are abroad we as teachers tend to teach
to the test instrument. And why wouldn't we? We are not going to run the
risk of being seen as a failure.  And when this happens, here comes the
sausage factory!  Jeff Scanlan scanlan@owl.qut.edu.au



 > >