I'm supposed to submit my PACT by this Tuesday. Currently debating whether to just submit it now and get it over with, or hang on to it for another thirty hours or so to continue editing and revising.
In theory, the PACT is awesome. Kind of like NCLB. But in real life, it sucks. Big time.
Here's some background information. PACT stands for Performance Assessment for California Teachers. You video tape yourself teaching a section from a unit for at least fifteen minutes, then write a huge ass paper on the context of the learning environment (i.e. what the class setting is like), what you planned and why you planned it (i.e. lesson/unit plans), discuss the video of yourself, discuss some student work samples, discuss things you would do differently and other similar stuff. It is by far the largest, longest academic project that I have ever done.
Why is it great in theory? Well, I like it because I'm a reflector. Specifically, I "write to think," which means that I fell like I haven't completely internalized new information until I've written about it. Hence this blog, among other documentation that I keep. Writing the PACT has probably been the single most informative event about my own teaching that I've gone through so far. I'm even crazy enough to think I would like to do this on my own in the future, just because I want to for myself.
So why is it not great? The weaknesses of PACT (and BTSA too, come to think about it) aligns with the weakness of NCLB: reality bites it in the butt, leaves a huge mark, sucks any meaningfulness out of it all, and then leaves a noxious poison that leaves you weak and exhausted and ready to quit teaching for something less tragic.
Maybe that's why I've procrastinated this far on it. I'm basically done, but I don't want to go back for editing because it leaves a bad aftertaste. It reminds me how much I suck as a teacher, how very bad some of my lessons have gone, and leaves the kind of doubt that drains me of my will to live.
I am so not exaggerating.
The most convoluted part is that the CCTC panel which scores the PACT doesn't read every single one. They randomly select a few for spot checking and then pass everyone else. If I am lucky enough to be chosen this year, I'll be graded on a scale of 1-4 on each of eleven areas outlined in the rubric. Any number of 1's is a complete and total fail, even if you manage 4's in every other area. There is no averaging here. I have to score 2's across the board in order to pass. It's known that 3's are possible but rare and reserved only for the top rated. My professor who is guiding us through the PACT has professed he himself would find trouble achieving a 4 in any area.
Plus, people who have their clear credential (or equivalent) don't have to go through this. Which is kind of unfair, because IMO, many veteran teachers really need some sort of re-training.
What with the RICA, the CSET, the CBEST, the program, the additional units for continued professional development, the BTSA, and lord knows what else they're going to throw at us, it's no wonder teacher recruitment is lower than nearly every other profession that requires equivalent education and experience. Then there's the pittance of a salary to boot.
This sounds a lot like complaining, and it probably is. I've logged somewhere between 35-45 work hours just writing this thing over the course of half a semester, betting on the off chance that mine will get chosen to be reviewed. You bet I'm going to be a bit bitter.
Yet, I've now decided to hold off on submitting it, despite having done all I can possibly do with it. Because a more telling characteristic of a teacher than having gone through the PACT is believing their work is never finished and can always be improved upon.
No comments:
Post a Comment