After class the other week I couldn't get it out of my head what we had discussed about the no falling policy in schools. Should we really have this policy? I understand that our goal is to get all students through school, but at what cost? Are all students ready for the next level just because we have to pass them? Wouldn't this lead to students who don't try because well really they don't have to?
This also plays into our adolescent psychology class in which we are discussing age grading. Should we clump all students together just because they are at the same grade or should we focus more on their cognitive abilities?
As a future teacher in B.C. this policy really worries me. What are your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You will have to excuse my Americaness and my tangent, but when I hear the term “No child left behind” I become thankful that I am to not going to be a teacher in the USA. The US’s No Child Left Behind Act is shockingly ridiculous. The No Child Left behind Act was put in place to improve students reading and math skill through standardized tests. By 2014, 100% of students in the US are intended to pass these tests; this seems unlikely. This includes ESL and special needs students. I included a website about some of the problems with this act and I hope people find time to read it as it is quite interesting. For example, if a student does poorly they have the opportunity to leave to school and go to a different one. My favourite part of the act is if a school continues to test poorly the entire faculty will be replaced. Bold move! The main problem teachers have with the act is precious time and money are wasted preparing for standardized tests while other school work is neglected.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thenation.com/doc/20070521/darling-hammond