38,99 €
inkl. MwSt.
Versandkostenfrei*
Versandfertig in 1-2 Wochen
payback
19 °P sammeln
  • Broschiertes Buch

Teachers cannot teach what they do not know. This country has tolerated a weak licensing system for prospective teachers for decades. This weak system has been accompanied by an increasingly emptier curriculum for most students, depriving them of the knowledge and skills needed for self-government. An Empty Curriculum: How Teacher Licensure Tests Lead to Empty Student Minds makes the case that the complete revision of the licensing system for prospective and veteran teachers in Massachusetts in 2000 and the construction of new or more demanding teacher licensing tests contributed significantly…mehr

Produktbeschreibung
Teachers cannot teach what they do not know. This country has tolerated a weak licensing system for prospective teachers for decades. This weak system has been accompanied by an increasingly emptier curriculum for most students, depriving them of the knowledge and skills needed for self-government. An Empty Curriculum: How Teacher Licensure Tests Lead to Empty Student Minds makes the case that the complete revision of the licensing system for prospective and veteran teachers in Massachusetts in 2000 and the construction of new or more demanding teacher licensing tests contributed significantly to the Massachusetts "education miracle." That "miracle" consisted of enduring gains in achievement for students in all demographic groups and in all regional vocational/technical high schools since 2005-gains confirmed by tests independent of Massachusetts policy makers.
Autorenporträt
Sandra Stotsky, professor of education emerita, University of Arkansas, was senior associate commissioner at the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education from 1999 to 2003, in charge of developing or revising K-12 standards in all major subjects, teacher and administrator licensing regulations, teacher licensure tests, and professional development criteria. She served on the Common Core Validation Committee from 2009 to 2010 but refused to sign off on these standards on the grounds that they were not (1) research-based, (2) internationally benchmarked, or (3) rigorous.