Critical Reflection:
The central argument of the paper is that ‘Standardization and curriculum alignment’ can be defined a method of educational quality control (Wraga, 1999) where the”process of teaching and learning is predetermined, pre-paced, and pre-structured.”
The idea that I found to be particularly challenging from the paper are the instances that confirm how either the teachers or students lose originality or creativity, for there are specific, correct answers that are elicited to specific direct question’ (Mahiri, 2005, p.82) that in order to pass the required yearly “high stakes” standardized exams required by No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001), the process of teaching is increasingly becoming “teacher proof” (Crocco & Costigan, 2007) in school districts across the country. – It is no surprise that issues on the results of the Standardized Tests in the country (Philippines), particularly the National Achievement Test (NAT) has been quite an issue ever since. Moreover, its result is the basis how a particular school performs. It is often said that economic status of the school community naturally has a say on the performance of the institution. In addition, schools with little population have the big advantage to get passing rate on the said NAT. Perpetually, where teachers are in the forefront when it comes to the responsibility of educating the students, they device ways where students get to pass the test. That is, having these students review the specific questions or skills within certain periods of time. As a result, the learning becomes static and monotonous, for these learners are plainly dictated to focus on the said specific questions with answers as expected to be given in the test.
The points I didn’t agree with is “how the Standardized and curriculum alignment is defined as a method of educational quality control.’ – How could this be when in reality, what happens is the reverse. Schools with large population have always been at the disadvantage. Imagine students not regularly attending the class to take the said test. Consequently, teachers device ways to remedy that by what we have already been aware of — switching students name, deliberately have these said students be absent on the scheduled test. And there a lot more devices.
The implications of the argument to my area of expertise or context are: 1) I realize that as a part of the system, I am a participant of the practices mentioned above; 2) In order to resolve this, I need to give students ample time to become learners responsible of their learning through self-discovery – that is, experienced-based learning. It is said that students learn more when they experience a certain skill; 3) As most lessons in the textbooks are non-interactive, impersonal, and not flexible in terms of their personal skills or regional origin, I should deviate lessons or adapt it to students’ inclination; and 4) Teachers should opt to go beyond the ‘standardization’ they have been used to knowing and make a breakthrough.
What is desirable here is that the authors have made the teacher-readers realize the shortcomings of ‘Standardization’. First of all, the way it has made us understand how the classroom has been built on certain ‘scripts’ that the textbooks provide; second, how the teachers have followed certain prescriptions from the said textbooks. – I am just thankful that I have been taught of preparing ‘content-based materials’ that if I do not find the content of the text relevant, I create lessons using other text materials just to localize and make it adaptable for my students; Lastly, how I could make myself relevant to my new students in Grade 11 – which is the reason why I have decided to study again. To study again means realizing that “In the analog era, teachers rely on textbooks as a critical teaching tool, but now teachers are creating their own resources using online materials that can be easily updated and tailored to regional issues” (Mindshift, 2017).
By: Lilia S. Crisostomo | Bataan National High School – Senior High School
