This article that the blogger posted was written by Diana Senechal. The main purpose of the article was questioning the idea that effective teachers produce higher salaries for their students. Apparently, according to labor data, students who score in the 84 percentile in high school test performance can expect to earn up to 10 to 15% more than those who do not. Senechal suggests that most of the students who score well probably have always scored well, and therefore it is not the "effective" teacher that produces the score. Rather, the student would have done well on the test regardless. Senechal also points out the fact that the student probably made the greatest gains at an earlier level of school, not the grade they are currently in. Senechal says that many high achievers choose to take a job that is low-key so that they may have activities outside of work, meaning that their salaries are a bit lower than what their achievement on standardized testing would suggest they will earn.
Senechal also points out that if these tests really do determine what your salary will probably be, then you will have "a cadre of test score virtuosi churning out lawyers, CEOs, social network inventors..." She asks the question who produces those that do not have such high salaries? Does that fall to the "not-quite-so-high-performing teachers?" Senechal goes on to say that you can't assume that more or higher equals better.
At the end of the article, Senechal says that if there is such a thing as free will, then teachers "produce" absolutely nothing. According to Senechal teachers should "teach, inspire, and encourage their students... and they point to many possibilities." Senechal also suggests that the teacher's main goal should be to help the student support themselves and do something they enjoy.
This article relates to class because of our discussion on standardized testing being an effective measure of how intelligent a student is. According to the article that Senechal was writing about, standardized testing is a great measuring tool for student's knowledge. Senechal agrees that those who are successful due tend to make more than those who do poorly. However, she also goes on to say that those who do well also take jobs that do not pay as well in order to do other activities. In a subtle sort of way, this article also relates to our discussions about teaching for the test, because the article that Senechal was writing about said that the best teachers were ones that had students who performed well on these standardized tests. Senechal believed that this was untrue, and that many times those who performed well on standardized testing chose lower end jobs, like I have previously discussed.
I agree with Senechal in that I don't believe that standardized testing is the best way to determine what salary a person will have when they are older. I think that many other factors come in to play in determining the SES of a person. I also agree that many times those who do well on standardized testing choose lower end jobs anyway. I'm a great example of this because I did very well on standardized testing, yet am planning on becoming a high school teacher. The part of the article I enjoyed most was the last paragraph, where Senechal describes the teacher's main task as to encourage the student and help them support themselves and do something they enjoy, not just make the most money.
I believe that Senechal comes from a student-centered approach. The most telling sign of this is the last paragraph where Senechal talks about the teachers being there to support the student. According to Senechal, the teacher is not the center of the show, with students being there to absorb as much as they can. Rather, the teacher is there for the student, helping them reach their potential and inspire them.
No comments:
Post a Comment