is an issue that stirred the staff room at the time of the implementation of the common core.
I issue the hypothesis incompatibility. The note on 20 makes, through the example of dictation, or sanctions. It may be argued that in many evaluations noted, the points are counted as positive: it highlights the achievements of students by one point, they may also decline to a quarter point as the degree of approximation of the formulation of the pupil. Remove a half or a quarter point on an issue can mean the student that his response is not perfect, but it still includes an element of positive response. But in the end it will still be a subtraction, that between the 12 of 20, these eight unearned points. What does this discrepancy? Is the gap between actual and prescribed. The standard curriculum is not 10/20, but 20/20. We position permanently student before a perfect and standard prescribed end of the program against which to build another "standard", the class average, corresponding to "reality" of class .
If you look at the averages (obtained by crunching coefficients), this "real" is biased. Whether one attends a city or PTA have 16 medium-General did not have the same value. The effects of constant macabre show also implied that the distribution takes place in the ranking of students. From the 6th to 3rd, there is finally a slow but perceptible decline in the average classroom, "because the level increases! All this seeming almost "natural". Moreover, if Professor of History and Geography class makes an average of 6 or 18/20, colleagues, students, administration and parents are wondering about the difference with the standard (which would be between 10 and 13/20 depending on the school and class levels).
These constants are explained by protective mechanisms from the teacher, so obsessed by the success of students, that the average is presented in class council . Who has not split us a duty to save the average catch of a student or class? Make an average range in the standard is to save Essentially, what some call "social peace", which contrary to popular belief, does not mean super teachers "demagogic", since this attribute is so pejorative a real difference to the standard . Nobody believes that a teacher is sufficiently great to get as close to the required standard.
The average student has no value set in relation to other students in the class. It allows us to situate the student in relation to others, and the average class to locate it in relation to others. Software management class as Pronota we provide graphic visualizations of these means which enable a decision instantaneous, simplifying the analysis of quarterly results for students. This system is established.
standard "real" is established in either a denial. Further analysis, it indirectly assesses the implementation of the program by the teacher gap more or less important to the average with the prescribed standard, that everyone will understand that it is an unreachable horizon.
This system distorts the learning process, our core business. First, standard "real" outcome of the general averages says little learning . It is used to characterize a general level, strengths and weaknesses by subject, to punish lack of work associated with a behavior or to congratulate the students who come closest to the required standard. Here's more or less the role of a class council, with extra management orientation of the student. On the other hand system keeps students under constant pressure positive results, causing adherence, motivation, the desire to succeed but also and increasingly the motivation to face the constancy of bad grades, resignation or dismissal of the total and violent. Thus a student can go through four years of college with 8 general average. Yet how can we not consider that the student has not progressed or skills acquired in the meantime? What about the effects of such a review yet benevolent: "Kevin has made efforts this quarter, but overall remains insufficient. We must hang on and make further efforts"?
The logic of common ground and work skills is of another paradigm, which removes some of the perverse effects of performance appraisal system. Without claiming to solve all problems alone school students (see the minutes of conferences Dominique Raullin presented on this blog).
Also double-evaluation is she, under the system established to avoid. The double-evaluation Overlay inevitably perverse scoring on a system that must enhance the progress and naming skills to work, while setting a horizon marked and accessible. She surreptitiously introduce the logic of renunciation by enrolling in the game truncated standards prescribed and actual .
0 comments:
Post a Comment