There is a line of thought where students are given choice and independence when selecting a specific unit of study within a larger unit. Student feel interested and ownership of their learning. Learning becomes unique and special. This cannot be achieved when we teach to the test, and when we are given strict curricula and guidelines of how to accomplish this.
This is especially applicable for special education students. What if we had a student like Sarah with CP, or a student like Michael with Aspergers? Would they benefit and get the most out of their education from a clearly defined curricula? Also, with hypothetical students like our learning profile students we have to consider testing accommodations. It is hard, because these accommodations aren't always provided even if they are listed on the IEPs. If it interferes with the skill they are being tested on, then they aren't provided. This makes me think the test should not require any accommodations to begin with, right? Shouldn't we be considering UDL always with our students? This is something that is challenging but that we need to accomplish.
Overall, testing is a tough issue. There are so many things we have to consider. Is it necessary? What things should we be testing? How do we determine that? If we didn't have testing, would some students not be educated at all? Is it really just a regulation tool for teachers? What about accommodations? Shouldn't UDL be used?
No comments:
Post a Comment