Article #2

This article by Tim Walker addresses one of the issues that teachers face each and every day: being treated like true professionals. The American public believes that there should be entrance requirements for teachers that are “just as selective, if not more so, than those required in fields such as business, pre-law, and engineering” (Walker, 2013). Ironically, many of the members of the American public who support entrance requirements also support reforms that de-professionalize teaching. 

Teachers are required to go through rigorous education and testing that rival these other professional fields, however, there are a few popular education reforms that are supported by the American public that degrade the teaching profession as well as the daily lives of teachers. The first reform issue that the article addresses is “value-added assessment” (Walker, 2013). What this means is that high-stakes standardized testing is being used as the “end all, be all” of testing, even though the data to back it up just doesn’t exist. According to Vanderbilt University’s Richard Milner, “The push for high test scores undermines the very essence of teachers’ creativity and their ability to be responsive to the particular needs of their students, varying as they do from student to student, year to year, and classroom to classroom” (Walker, 2013). Basically, this means that standardized testing is being used in place of allowing teachers to be the ones who make judgment calls instead of data and numbers.

Another reform issue that the article addresses is the prevalence of alternative teacher certification programs, such as Teach for America. These programs, which “push candidates into classrooms without any real intensive training,” make it seem like teaching is something that anyone can do (Walker, 2013). While these candidates might possess knowledge of a specific area, they may not have received the training that an educated teacher would have received such as knowledge of child development. Even though the intent is in the right place, by letting “almost anyone” walk into the education field, these fast-track programs are demeaning what little professional status teaching has left.

The final issue that is addressed in the article is the curriculum and how it is being changed to limit input from teachers. The curriculum has been “highly-sculpted,” to the point that “teachers are to act as automatons rather than professionals” (Walker, 2013). If you were to take your car to have the oil changed, and the person performing the work had to use a step-by-step manual to change the oil, what would you think? Would you wonder if they were qualified to change your oil? The same thing happens to teachers when the curriculum is limited and mandated to the point that there is no professional freedom.

The three issues that the article addresses, standardized testing, alternative teacher certification programs, and the limited curriculum, are interfering with the professionalism of teachers and the way the American public views teaching. As pre-service teachers, we need to pay attention to these issues because they will soon affect us in our everyday lives as practicing teachers.







References

Walker, T. (2013, March 6). Three ‘Reforms’ That Are Deprofessionalizing Teaching | NEA Today. Retrieved March 14, 2013, from http://neatoday.org/2013/03/06/three-%E2%80%98reforms%E2%80%99-that-are-deprofessionalizing-teaching/?utm_source=nea_today_express&utm_medium=email&utm_content=3badideas&utm_campaign=130417neatodayexpress

Article #1

“Iowa Core Reaction”

While browsing the Iowa Core website, I was floored by the amount of

information presented. Multiple categories, sub-categories, and vague statements were

all that I saw at first, but as I dug deeper, I came upon a section that really defined what

the Iowa Core was all about. This section helped me to better understand what I would

be expected to cover in my elementary classroom one day.

At first, the Iowa Core website seemed a bit overwhelming; so many sections and

so many unfamiliar terms and acronyms were being presented. The first section I read,

Key Design Considerations, was also the most helpful in understanding what this website

was all about. The Iowa Core is made up of the College and Career Readiness Standards

(CCR), which define a general set of expectations that students must meet in order to be

ready for the college and career worlds, and the Grade-Specific Standards, which

basically define what the students should know at the end of the year (Iowa Core, 2012).

Both the CCR and Grade-Specific Standards dictate the expectations in reading, writing,

speaking and listening, and language, with the addition of literature, informational text,

and foundational skills in the reading category of the Grade-Specific Standards. After

reading this section, I had a clearer understanding of my role in the Iowa Core, although I

According to the Iowa Core website, “the Standards define what all students are

expected to know and be able to do, not how teachers should teach” (Iowa Core, 2012).

After reading about the CCR and Grade-Specific Standards, I was actually relieved to

know that I would still have the freedom to implement my own teaching methods and

that the Standards act as a guide. As a current school employee, however, I know that

each school district can choose certain materials that teachers must use, so I could

possibly be restricted to only using those materials. I also know that a lot of standard

materials don’t account for students who are not performing at grade-level, or are

performing above grade level. Likewise, the Iowa Core Standards also have “no

definable intervention methods for those students who are well-below or well-above

grade-level average” (Iowa Core, 2012). In this case, I assume that the course of action

is determined by the individual students’ specific case.

The most interesting part of the Iowa Core is that one of the main purposes is to

define end-of-year expectations (Iowa Core, 2012). According to the CCR Standards,

“students advancing through the grades are expected to meet each year’s grade-specific

standards, retain or further develop skills and understandings mastered in preceding

grades, and work steadily toward meeting the more general expectations described by the

CCR Standards” (Iowa Core, 2012). What better way to measure a student’s progress

than to check and see how they are progressing during the year toward a pre-defined end

goal? This would show me, as the teacher, what I need to do to help my student, since a

younger student would need very specific guidance.

In conclusion, I believe the Iowa Core will help me as a first-year teacher because

I will have a set of standards that I can follow that will help me measure the progress of

my students. As first, it seemed overwhelming, but once I wrapped my head around

some of the major concepts, I was more prepared to accept the Standards and that they

are student-based and are in place to ensure all students in Iowa are prepared for the ever-

References

Iowa Core. (n.d.). Retrieved March 23, 2013, from Iowa Department of Education,

Iowa Core Literacy Standards website, http://www.educateiowa.gov/index.php?

option=com_content&view=article&id=2328&Itemid=4340