For whom do mandates work, and in what ways? "The Public" often laments the
(unsubstantiated) decline in the quality of teaching. At the same time,
they support initiatives (e.g., massive increases in mandates for
accountability testing) that make life miserable for good teachers and help
to drive them out of the classroom. When we ask about the effects of
mandates, I think we need to consider the question from a teacher's point
of view, and also from a student's point of view; and, I'm sure, from the
collective's point of view.
Mandates to teach subjects, or mandates to teach subjects in particular
ways? I can't imagine a school where it wasn't required to teach math or
reading. The question on this network seems to assume that it's a good
think to mandate the teaching of reading; the concern is that reading is
now legislated to be taught in a particular way. But, at least in high
school, the mandating of subject areas is controversial: why mandate 4
years of P.E. and 2 of history? (a question with political dimensions--in
Illinois, at least, the mandating of 4 years of P.E. was attributed in part
to the strong political clout of P.E. organizations.) Which subjects,
then, are "essential" and therefore worthy of instruction in every year?
Which are nonessential, and therefore only assigned status as electives
(e.g., art, foreign language, kite flying, etc.)?
Much to think about here, Mike....
Peter
At 08:23 PM 3/28/99 -0800, you wrote:
>
>Hello All--
>
>Well, no silence for the past few days while I was away! :-)
>
>How does mandated whole language differ from mandated phonics or mandated
>kite flying, or for that matter, mandated anything. Mandated= directly
>coerced, right? Maybe there are too many threads in my eyes, but I don't
>see what THIS thread is getting us to.
>mike