Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="crrcboatz" data-source="post: 2406143" data-attributes="member: 32702">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.&nbsp; Building principals typically were responsible for reading lesson plans on a weekly basis.&nbsp; They should have been looking for the &quot;targets&quot; that each teacher is to follow for the week.&nbsp; Those targets were prescribed by what we called &quot;canned&quot; curriculum.&nbsp; The targets were integrated into the teachers plans by activities, and expected learner outcomes they would list.&nbsp; They also must list the stated &quot;expected learner outcomes&quot; from the activities.&nbsp; If tests were part of it, they had to show relevance of the test to the targets.&nbsp; If students had done poorly on recent tests of the subject matter, they were expected to list &quot;reteach&quot; strategies to cover the material that students did not do well on.&nbsp; However they were expected to stay on a time frame to finish the curriculum in time for the &quot;big one&quot; as principals often called it.&nbsp; That is&nbsp; the biggest fallacy of all this testing.&nbsp; Teachers had to cover the material by testing time.&nbsp; There was little time to reteach material that students had been challenged with. I equate this to building a car.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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 &quot;getr done by testing time&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="crrcboatz, post: 2406143, member: 32702"] 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 [B]mastery skills[/B] 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". [/QUOTE]

Verification