Effective Teaching in Curriculum Reform
What is the most important factor in curriculum reform movements? Is it standardized test scores or the qualification of being a good teacher? Nope. Although these factors are significant in promoting curriculum reform, however, they concentrate on either the higher students' academic performance or the more rigorous requirements of teachers. In order to successfully satisfy the needs of students, it is better for the policymakers to put themselves into students' shoes to measure the achievement of teaching by evaluating the students' passion and progress in the teaching process rather than only test scores or teacher evaluations. In brief, refining the current assessment system to measure the efficiency in teaching is the most important factor in curriculum reform movements.
The Problem
When it comes to the topic of curriculum reform, most of us will readily agree that we need to improve the quality of our teachers or to develop better education standards (Alters, 2012). Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of how curriculum reform satisfies the students’ needs in learning. Whereas some are convinced to rely on standardized test scores to determine the efficiency in public education, Linda Darling-Hammond (2011), an American educator, maintains that these assessments do not benefit the students’ academic performance; and school education should focus on providing quality education to the children. Thus, the role of standardized test scores in curriculum reform has provoked a controversy discussion in Philadelphia.
Since 2002, curriculum reform called the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act has gone into effect across the nation. According to NCLB, the students’ acad...
... middle of paper ...
...formers to design specific methods in order to pursue the goal of improving teaching effectiveness so that this modification is the most significant step in promoting curriculum reform.
In the end, both Darling-Hammond (2010) and Goe et al. (2008) believe that effective teaching is achieved when students are motivated to learn. Measuring the efficiency in teaching enables educators to get the policymakers to understand that the learning process is more important than its results. Therefore, the goal in curriculum reform should concentrate on the students' progress and passion in order to provide better education to students. Overall, refining the current assessment system to measure teaching effectiveness successfully shifts the focus of curriculum reform to students from test scores or teacher evaluations, so it is the best solution to promote curriculum reform.
Even with the negative and positive functions of No Child Left Behind, there are many areas that still need to ironed out. Under the Obama administration several states have received a waiver from No Child Left Behind, “with this waiver students will still be tested annually. But starting this fall, schools in those states will no longer face the same prescriptive actions spelled out under No Child Left Behind” (Feller & Hefling, 2012). Since 2007, the law has been up for review, but due to opponents of the law there has not been an agreement reached and the law continues to stress our schools and children out. We can only hope that when this law is reviewed and agreed upon that it really is in the best interest of our children and the nation as a whole.
This is precisely the problem. Standardized tests are old and outdated, and the harm they cause to America’s education system by far outweighs the benefits. These tests were intended to monitor and offer ways to improve how public schools function, but instead they have impaired the natural learning ability of students and imposed upon the judgment of experienced educators. Although a means to evaluate the progress of public schools is necessary, it is also necessary to develop more modern and effective ways of doing so. Standardized testing mandated by the federal and state governments has a negative effect on the education of America’s youth.
Another major criticism of the “No Child Left Behind” deals with the implications of using a standardized test as means of assessing achievement.
Teachers who lack passion and desire to teach what they are given can translate and manifest its way to students as they also lose aspirations to come to school and learn only what will be on exams they are supposed to take to show that they are “learning.” Students come to school to learn things they did not know prior and with the acquisition of knowledge it can many a times create a drive for students to expand upon a particular subject, which can ultimately determine their careers and goals, but this whole process is shutdown with standardized tests, as many topics and subjects are limited to a few basic ones that put out the fire students are expected to have.
The United States of America has placed low on the educational ladder throughout the years. The cause of such a low ranking is due to such heavy emphasis on standardized testing and not individual student achievement. Although the United States uses standardized testing as a crutch, it is not an effective measure of a student’s ability, a teacher’s competency, or a school’s proficiency.
Since the U.S. Congress passed the No Child Left Behind program, standardized testing has become the norm for American schools. Under this system, each child attending a school is required to take a standardized test at specific grade points to assess their level of comprehension. Parents, scholars and all stakeholders involved take part in constant discussions over its effectiveness in evaluating students’ comprehension, teachers’ competency and the effects of the test on the education system. Though these tests were put in place to create equality, experts note that they have created more inequality in the classroom. In efforts to explore this issue further, this essay reviews two articles on standardized testing. This essay reviews the sentiments of the authors and their insight into standardized examination. The articles provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that standardized tests are not effective at measuring a teacher’s competency because they do not take into account the school environment and its effect on the students.
Cole, H., Hulley, K., & Quarles, P. (2009). Does assessment have to drive the curriculum?
Worthen, Blaine R., and Vicki Spandel. "Putting the Standardized Testing Debate in Perspective." Educational Leadership Feb. 1991: 65-69. ASCD. 1 Dec. 2013
According to him, curriculum is not a “thing” people need and need to learn. It is something communicated to children through a teacher. It should be conceived as a dynamic aspect. It should be tailored to children’s individual needs and interests making it more fascinating and meaningful to them. Keeping track on students’ progress and further development is another important aspect that a teacher should do. But how should teachers manage this? Ayers, like Ken Robinson had been criticizing standardized tests. They, and I for one, firmly believe that standardized tests play biases and do not really measure one’s skills, abilities, emotions and creativity. It kills students’ creative ideas. Ayers belief is that to reform education for the better, we must go in the exact opposite direction, away from standardization of curricula, teaching, and assessment. Educators should have thought differently about education, allowing students to tap into the motivation of students to raise student achievement and honor the diversity of students. Instead, a different sort of education, one that harnesses the intrinsic motivation and creativity of students is
Parents and advocates of education can all agree that they want their students to be in the best hands possible in regards to education. They want the best teachers, staffs, and schools to ensure their student’s success. By looking at the score results from standardized testing, teachers can evaluate effectively they are doing their job. On the other side, a proponent for eliminating standardized testing would argue that not all students care passionately about their education and will likely not perform to expectations on the test. However, receiving the numerical data back, teachers can construe the student’s performances and eliminate the outliers of the negligent kids. Teachers can then look at the individual scores and assign those outliers to get the help they need in school. This helps every student getting an equal chance at education. Overall, taking a practice standardized test can let a teacher look at individual questions and scores and interpret what they need to spend more time on teaching. A school also can reap the benefits from standard testing to ensure they are providing the best possible education they can. The school can look at the average scores from a group and hold the teacher accountable for the student’s results on the test. The school can then determine the best course of action to pursuit regarding the teacher’s career at the school. By offering teachers and schools the opportunity to grow and prosper, standardized testing is a benefit for the entire education
The achievement gap is greatly evident and impacts the low-income, minority students the most. Although the federal government attempted to resolve this problem with No Child Left Behind, the social problem is still evident. As there is still much pressure on standardized tests and annual reports, reformation is needed. No Child Left Behind has proven to be inadequate and rather highlights the urgency for education reform. Although the act is called “No Child Left Behind,” an appropriate title would have been “Education Left Behind.” More than focusing on test scores, education should prepare students in how to contribute to
Standardized tests are used to evaluate a student’s performance, however, tests do not take external factors into account. This already means that tests are often inaccurate methods of measuring a students academic potential. Also, the tests do a disservice to students as they evaluate their proficiency at a time of testing, rather than their growth and improvement over the course of the year. The tests have become an outdated method of challenging students and only have negative impacts at this point. The tests develop high levels of stress in students, which is not healthy for an individual during the most important development years of their lives. Eliminating these tests will assist students in the long run as they can accommodate more time towards learning information rather than stressing over a single test. By replacing tests with more in-class lessons students will be free of constant stress and still learn the curriculum. Research shows that students are unable to remember information on standardized tests in the long run, therefore, by spending more time learning and understanding information, students are able to have a better understanding of topics. Therefore, by removing standardized tests students will be provided with a better, more effective, and fair educational
This emphasis on thoughtful evaluation has kept Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction a relevant, trusted companion for over sixty years. And with school districts across the nation working feverishly to align their curriculum with Common Core standards, Tyler's straightforward recommendations are sound and effective tools for educators working to create a curriculum that integrates national objectives with their students' needs. In essence, Tyler’s Rationale is represented by the four-step sequence of identifying objectives, selecting the means for the attainment or achievement of these objectives that is through educational or teaching-learning experiences provided for students, organizing these educational or teaching-learning experiences, and evaluating the outcomes or what have students attained or achieved. Tyler suggested when developing curriculum, objectives data should be gathered from three sources, namely; the learner, society, and subject matter.
John W. Gardner said, “Much education today is monumentally ineffective. All too often we are giving young people cut flowers when we should be teaching them to grow their own plants.” Education today is very ineffective. It is in an in between phase of the ways of old and a time of complete reform. The main issue is that people often lose sight of why the education system should even be reformed. It shouldn’t be reformed because “that’s what everyone else is doing.” It needs to be reformed to bridge the gap for the students who have a different learning style. It should be reformed to expand knowledge for students. Education reform can have good and bad effects. Because the education system is very complex, educators are being faced with changes and they must decide what is best for students.
Educational institutions today are increasing their emphasis on high standards as a crucial factor in improving the quality of education imparted to their students. They are, therefore, looking at new and better ways to develop such a curriculum that meets all the pre-decided standards. This calls for a change in the way schools are run and the methods of teaching in order to design, implement and evaluate curriculum effectively.