My teacher training program did a great job on theory. The only thing that truly prepares a teacher, though, is classroom experience. I think that teacher training would benefit from a full year of internship.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WAPO today: Duncan wants to tie university teacher training to graduates performance in the classroom--test scores, etc.

As a graduate of a university teacher training program, I am totally in favor of this idea.

Then you are incredibly naive. These tests will soon be used as a weapon against you, as 70 to 95 percent will repeatedly fail the tests.

Where did you buy your crystal ball?

My university teacher training program was awful. The graduates who performed well as teachers did so in spite of the program, not because of it. If the program were judged on the performance of its graduates, maybe it would shape up.

No crystal ball needed. In the states where they have been testing for the past two to three years, the majority of kids fail.

Perhaps you should have done your homework and picked a better school!

"The states" = Kentucky and New York. And the non-applicability of New York's experience to any other state has been thoroughly explained on this thread.

Actually, my teacher training program had a very good reputation among teacher training programs (though not, as it turned out, among actual teachers in the area), but thanks for your concern.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WAPO today: Duncan wants to tie university teacher training to graduates performance in the classroom--test scores, etc.

As a graduate of a university teacher training program, I am totally in favor of this idea.

Then you are incredibly naive. These tests will soon be used as a weapon against you, as 70 to 95 percent will repeatedly fail the tests.

Where did you buy your crystal ball?

My university teacher training program was awful. The graduates who performed well as teachers did so in spite of the program, not because of it. If the program were judged on the performance of its graduates, maybe it would shape up.

No crystal ball needed. In the states where they have been testing for the past two to three years, the majority of kids fail.


Perhaps you should have done your homework and picked a better school!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WAPO today: Duncan wants to tie university teacher training to graduates performance in the classroom--test scores, etc.

As a graduate of a university teacher training program, I am totally in favor of this idea.

Then you are incredibly naive. These tests will soon be used as a weapon against you, as 70 to 95 percent will repeatedly fail the tests.

Where did you buy your crystal ball?

My university teacher training program was awful. The graduates who performed well as teachers did so in spite of the program, not because of it. If the program were judged on the performance of its graduates, maybe it would shape up.

New Common Core tests may overwhelm some students, seriously challenge others, the Council of the Great City Schools predicts
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/04/new_common_core_tests_may_over.html

"In addition to giving answers that were incorrect, students often gave no answer at all. That’s a big change from the multiple-choice questions used today, where kids can simply guess.

“They may be frustrated enough by a question to not even try it,” Casserly said. “We need to do a better job of working with kids on how to apply their knowledge, solve problems and express their knowledge to somebody else.”

Casserly pointed to questions, in both math and English, that require students to explain their answers. As the presentation from the Council noted:

“In addition to the large percentage of students across the country who do not answer these items correctly (82 percent nationally in the first example), one should note the percentage of students who make no attempt to answer these types of items.”

A sneak peek at the tests:

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/04/take_a_sneak_peek_at_the_new_c.html

AND


http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/04/common_core_tests_are_tough_fo.html


Even high-performing suburban districts are worried about Common Core tests

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WAPO today: Duncan wants to tie university teacher training to graduates performance in the classroom--test scores, etc.

As a graduate of a university teacher training program, I am totally in favor of this idea.

Then you are incredibly naive. These tests will soon be used as a weapon against you, as 70 to 95 percent will repeatedly fail the tests.

Anonymous wrote:WAPO today: Duncan wants to tie university teacher training to graduates performance in the classroom--test scores, etc.

As a graduate of a university teacher training program, I am totally in favor of this idea.

Anonymous wrote:

Where in Common Core does it say the teacher must get fired if a student doesn't follow the rubric for an essay question? I must have missed that. Citation, please.
[Report Post]

The tests are going to be used to evaluate teachers. At least, that is what Duncan wants. Unintended consequence.

"Evaluating teachers" does not mean "firing teachers if students don't follow the rubric for an essay question".

Where in Common Core does it say the teacher must get fired if a student doesn't follow the rubric for an essay question? I must have missed that. Citation, please.
[Report Post]

The tests are going to be used to evaluate teachers. At least, that is what Duncan wants. Unintended consequence.

Anonymous wrote:

Rubrics are really just structural and can easily be validated but beyond that, when did gauging essays ever NOT have some degree of subjectivity?

Problem is that these are being used to judge not only the student--but to help determine whether the teacher keeps the job.

Where in Common Core does it say the teacher must get fired if a student doesn't follow the rubric for an essay question? I must have missed that. Citation, please.

WAPO today: Duncan wants to tie university teacher training to graduates performance in the classroom--test scores, etc.

Rubrics are really just structural and can easily be validated but beyond that, when did gauging essays ever NOT have some degree of subjectivity?

Problem is that these are being used to judge not only the student--but to help determine whether the teacher keeps the job.

Anonymous wrote:It is still subjective. I wonder if they have validated some tests to see if the results are reliable.

Rubrics are really just structural and can easily be validated but beyond that, when did gauging essays ever NOT have some degree of subjectivity?

It is still subjective. I wonder if they have validated some tests to see if the results are reliable.

It uses big words (like referencing the text and inferential and explicit) but I don't think the concepts are all that hard.