Student teaching is a bizarre netherland. You are a teacher, but you aren't. You are an observer, but you are an active participant. You enforce rules but don't set the rules of the game. You are constructing knowledge internally, but acting like an empty vessel to be filled externally. It isn't your place to give feedback, but you might have some to give based on your newfound learnings/understandings. Just some odd observations about the concept of student teaching.
The implications of the last of the points is interesting when extrapolated to peer-to-peer review in the salary ladder (something Washington is considering). I see the inequity of having teaching make the same at each tier: some are far better quality teachers than others, some do more work than others, but they all are compensated the same. But I am not so sure that moving to having peers review each other advances the field. Doesn't that create a popularity contest like prom king and queen? If I were reviewed by 3 peers, 1 of which I don't jive with, how can I be sure I am getting a fair review? Maybe it makes sense in a post-racial, post-political party future we have tried to enter, but I don't see it. I think the process discourages peer constructive feedback... ugh.
No comments:
Post a Comment