My sons teacher is. She brought up CC at our conference and I immediately spoke my dislike of it.
She didn't know what to think other then telling me how she's loves it and how great it is.
My sons teacher is. She brought up CC at our conference and I immediately spoke my dislike of it.
She didn't know what to think other then telling me how she's loves it and how great it is.
How many years has she been teaching? Was she teaching before CC?
She's been teaching for a while, over 10 years iirc.
That's really odd. I do not know of any CC fans in the teaching ranks and my wife and mother are both teachers.
I think we were both equally shocked when it came up.
Her that I didn't like it then me when she said she did
She tried to tell me how great it was for the kids and how they are learning faster a day a higher level with it. Plus that it was easier for the teachers.
I think we were both equally shocked when it came up.
Her that I didn't like it then me when she said she did
She tried to tell me how great it was for the kids and how they are learning faster a day a higher level with it. Plus that it was easier for the teachers.
Is every lesson plan scripted, and every activity and assessment laid out for them?
I had staff like the lady that likes CC over the years. I called them "upward mobiles" because they'd say or do what ever central office came up with in order to be considered for promotion. I often would challenge them as to the thought behind their obvious zealousness for any and all things new we had to deal with. The response was exactly as the above teacher responded, no reason based on a foundation, rather only excitement. BEWARE of those teachers as they will surely promote themselves to upper administration at any cost. After finally reaching the level of hire and fire at central office, I can assure you I never recommended that type of person for promotion out of their situation. If they were tenured we'd move them around until they left.
In my years of experience I never saw a prepared lesson plan that was prepared for the teacher. That was true even in the Texas encounter. Building principals typically were responsible for reading lesson plans on a weekly basis. They should have been looking for the "targets" that each teacher is to follow for the week. Those targets were prescribed by what we called "canned" curriculum. The targets were integrated into the teachers plans by activities, and expected learner outcomes they would list. They also must list the stated "expected learner outcomes" from the activities. If tests were part of it, they had to show relevance of the test to the targets. If students had done poorly on recent tests of the subject matter, they were expected to list "reteach" strategies to cover the material that students did not do well on. However they were expected to stay on a time frame to finish the curriculum in time for the "big one" as principals often called it. That is the biggest fallacy of all this testing. Teachers had to cover the material by testing time. There was little time to reteach material that students had been challenged with.
I equate this to building a car. Does the builder get the car out the door in order to keep up in assembly or do they redo part of the assembly because it was not done properly in the beginning?? Maybe like a car built on Friday stigma. I would never want my car built that way. With our children I would surely never want to push them through learning in order to satisfy a mandated timeline. For me I personally would rather they learn mastery skills with a basic degree proficiency of those skills as determined by a well qualified and effective teacher, than someone setting in an office at the state dept that says "getr done by testing time".
I equate this to building a car. Does the builder get the car out the door in order to keep up in assembly or do they redo part of the assembly because it was not done properly in the beginning?? Maybe like a car built on Friday stigma. I would never want my car built that way. With our children I would surely never want to push them through learning in order to satisfy a mandated timeline. For me I personally would rather they learn mastery skills with a basic degree proficiency of those skills as determined by a well qualified and effective teacher, than someone setting in an office at the state dept that says "getr done by testing time".
The teachers who support CC seem to fit into 2 categories.
1. New, young, naïve, lib, and follow blindly.
2. Those inept few that don't have a clue how to teach and see CC as the easy way to improve student test scores which in turn makes the teacher look better and allow them to 'blow their own horn' and move up.
Standardized testing has been around for years, too many years. We need the system to return to the '50s and before when the 'basics' were taught.
I see a lot of the same type crap work. They want to micro-manage and measure systems that are easy to manage and measure, but overlook what is important and make meaningful measurements.
Case in point; 120 widgets were loaded into a case. The measurement was how many ID cards were printed to identify the cases, not how many widgets are produced that meet quality specs. We now load 80 widgets per case. Production is up 50% and manager bonuses are abundant. ??????????
Shockwave ............ worker bees now have to move 50% cases in the same amount of time and space.
because of rushing to keep up, safety incidents rise. Investigations are made. Conclusions: Too much speed causing unsafe environment, therefore fork trucks max speed must be lowered from 8 mph to 5 mph.
Shockwave ............ workload is increase 40% on top of the previous increase of 50%.
Result; production is down and managers are riding worker bees, making threats of lost jobs or other disciplinary measures.
BUT, we have a COMMON, EASY, STANDARDIZED MEASUEMENT SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1. New, young, naïve, lib, and follow blindly.
2. Those inept few that don't have a clue how to teach and see CC as the easy way to improve student test scores which in turn makes the teacher look better and allow them to 'blow their own horn' and move up.
Standardized testing has been around for years, too many years. We need the system to return to the '50s and before when the 'basics' were taught.
I see a lot of the same type crap work. They want to micro-manage and measure systems that are easy to manage and measure, but overlook what is important and make meaningful measurements.
Case in point; 120 widgets were loaded into a case. The measurement was how many ID cards were printed to identify the cases, not how many widgets are produced that meet quality specs. We now load 80 widgets per case. Production is up 50% and manager bonuses are abundant. ??????????
Shockwave ............ worker bees now have to move 50% cases in the same amount of time and space.
because of rushing to keep up, safety incidents rise. Investigations are made. Conclusions: Too much speed causing unsafe environment, therefore fork trucks max speed must be lowered from 8 mph to 5 mph.
Shockwave ............ workload is increase 40% on top of the previous increase of 50%.
Result; production is down and managers are riding worker bees, making threats of lost jobs or other disciplinary measures.
BUT, we have a COMMON, EASY, STANDARDIZED MEASUEMENT SYSTEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Similar threads
