Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Unschooling
Credits go to Gabbi for sharing this video.
So this is probably one of my few posts not related to Canadian anything, but since it's about education it's going to make it onto this page.
I completely agree with nurturing creativity and not restraining kids because, as some psychologist or whoever has said in their study, it's the social norms and expectations that kill our future's creativity by forcing them into jobs that make them less human and more robotic.
This laissez-faire style isn't going to open doors for them. What child would have the sudden interest spark in them to learn calculus, or history, etc?
Basically my opinions echo with The Young Turks.
Also, by crippling the children's opportunities, they'll only slow down the society and make it less productive. They should be shown opportunities for the future careers, but not "forcefully". Those parents in the video act as if school is an army camp where people brainwash you, and kick you if you don't comply. School isn't like that. School is a place where you can learn your stuff, and if you don't understand, then you have at least one teacher who can help you through, or you can go to peer tutor programs.
In addition, these children aren't only missing out on the compulsory courses which make a citizen productive, but these children will be lacking in the relationships area. How will they know how to communicate with authority figures? Their parents don't believe in punishment or even discipline, not even the benefits of health. How will they be able to function in the workplace? Another issue is how they can communicate with their peers later in their lives. After a decade and some odd years of being spoiled and pampered to their every whim, they'll need to learn how to compromise and negotiate with their peers, which they have not learned in their past lives.
Final comment (or so), "I'll just pick up a textbook and I would learn." What? We aren't all "the Rain Man", and even the real Rain Man had to put in at least 10 000 hours of hard gruelling training over the course of a decade (~3 hours per day) to be able to memorize books right off the bat. If people could just "learn", per se, nobody would go to school. We would just read a book, throw it out and do our job.
Now why do doctors take at least 8 years to qualify in the medical field?
Even if I don't go so far as to talk about their relationships when they're adults, they'll be hit right in the face when they reach college or university when they lack those key subjects, or even how to behave around professors and other peers.
Oh America, what will we do with you?
New curriculum for kindergarten: full-day
Today, the bill to extend the kindergarten day has been passed.
Basically, this bill says that instead of having the choice of choosing morning or afternoon kindergarten sessions for a toddler, the normal kindergarten day will be from 9am to 3pm.
In a way, this is good because this makes teaching primary/junior grades much more attractive: the pay should be higher while you retain the same amount of education you have gained in your post-secondary institutions, the children will definitely learn more (assuming the teachers are consistent with their style of teaching) and the school staff can formulate better curricula in the future because they have more resources to work with. All in all, it seems like a pretty good deal.
Before this bill was passed, some parents were concerned about the "new kindergarten" being a type of watered down Grade 1, with tests and evaluations. In reality, this new curriculum is going introduce the basics of language, math, science, arts, physical and personal development through play.
Contrary to the new sex ed curriculum (which has been brought down "from the shelf", as McGuinty cleverly worded) of adding new content, the newly introduced kindergarten curriculum does not add extra material, but it offers more opportunities to learn "more broadly and deeply".
The new curriculum, which was posted on the Ministry of Education's site, is a mix between the existing kindergarten curriculum and a document signed in 2007 designed for the Early Learning for Every Child Today (ELECT). Both emphasize play as a medium for discovering the basics of learning. Full-day kindergarten classes will be led by the teacher and an early childhood educator, where the child will learn the concepts expected to be grasped by the time they reach grade one, and also real-life teaching tips found in the ELECT guidelines.
The new program highlights the significance of oral language to catapult the children into learning reading and writing, and using literacy materials throughout the class to keep the information fresh and consistent.
The Ministry will be training teachers and early childhood educators near the end of April, which is approximately now.
Once again, I believe that this is a great leap forward for the Ministry of Education, so this probably evens out with the remark I made about the establishing of Africentric schools. Other than that though, I think we really need to focus on some important aspects of this curriculum. It doesn't seem that the bill has mentioned anything about nap times for the children. Nap times are important, particularly for children because they do need to have a quiet time to themselves. Not trying to do a comparison check, but in France, they have nap times for adults as well because it has been proven that nap times in the middle of the day prove to be beneficial for the psyche and for the body, thus leading to more productivity.
Some parents worry about the length of the day for children. Actually, there are children who have been attending daycare, and they are there from hours as early as 7am to hours as late as 6pm if their family happens to be a dual-income family. If children as young as 3 can handle it, then I personally do not see the problem with a 4 year old attending a 9 to 3. The skills they learn in full-day are going to benefit the children in the long term, and they will be much better prepared for grade one.
Also, the results, as some parents argue, won't take as long as they think. Just measuring their progress from 10 years ago to now for at least a 5-year curve will be enough. Did the kids really attain these skills? Did they seem to absorb more in the full-day than the half-day?
Besides, I thought half-day kindergarten was pretty much daycare itself. Mine was in Hong Kong, and we didn't have as many playthings like sandboxes and things like that. We did mostly school stuff, like dictations, small tests, writing stories, drawing, etc. Aside from proficiency in English, I was well prepared for grade one regarding math, art, and science skills. Although there will most likely be a difference in progress for children whether the kindergarten is half-day or full-day, I don't believe it's a make-or-break factor. It all depends on how well the teacher can the kids, whether through play or not.
Basically, this bill says that instead of having the choice of choosing morning or afternoon kindergarten sessions for a toddler, the normal kindergarten day will be from 9am to 3pm.
In a way, this is good because this makes teaching primary/junior grades much more attractive: the pay should be higher while you retain the same amount of education you have gained in your post-secondary institutions, the children will definitely learn more (assuming the teachers are consistent with their style of teaching) and the school staff can formulate better curricula in the future because they have more resources to work with. All in all, it seems like a pretty good deal.
Before this bill was passed, some parents were concerned about the "new kindergarten" being a type of watered down Grade 1, with tests and evaluations. In reality, this new curriculum is going introduce the basics of language, math, science, arts, physical and personal development through play.
Contrary to the new sex ed curriculum (which has been brought down "from the shelf", as McGuinty cleverly worded) of adding new content, the newly introduced kindergarten curriculum does not add extra material, but it offers more opportunities to learn "more broadly and deeply".
The new curriculum, which was posted on the Ministry of Education's site, is a mix between the existing kindergarten curriculum and a document signed in 2007 designed for the Early Learning for Every Child Today (ELECT). Both emphasize play as a medium for discovering the basics of learning. Full-day kindergarten classes will be led by the teacher and an early childhood educator, where the child will learn the concepts expected to be grasped by the time they reach grade one, and also real-life teaching tips found in the ELECT guidelines.
The new program highlights the significance of oral language to catapult the children into learning reading and writing, and using literacy materials throughout the class to keep the information fresh and consistent.
The Ministry will be training teachers and early childhood educators near the end of April, which is approximately now.
Once again, I believe that this is a great leap forward for the Ministry of Education, so this probably evens out with the remark I made about the establishing of Africentric schools. Other than that though, I think we really need to focus on some important aspects of this curriculum. It doesn't seem that the bill has mentioned anything about nap times for the children. Nap times are important, particularly for children because they do need to have a quiet time to themselves. Not trying to do a comparison check, but in France, they have nap times for adults as well because it has been proven that nap times in the middle of the day prove to be beneficial for the psyche and for the body, thus leading to more productivity.
Some parents worry about the length of the day for children. Actually, there are children who have been attending daycare, and they are there from hours as early as 7am to hours as late as 6pm if their family happens to be a dual-income family. If children as young as 3 can handle it, then I personally do not see the problem with a 4 year old attending a 9 to 3. The skills they learn in full-day are going to benefit the children in the long term, and they will be much better prepared for grade one.
Also, the results, as some parents argue, won't take as long as they think. Just measuring their progress from 10 years ago to now for at least a 5-year curve will be enough. Did the kids really attain these skills? Did they seem to absorb more in the full-day than the half-day?
Besides, I thought half-day kindergarten was pretty much daycare itself. Mine was in Hong Kong, and we didn't have as many playthings like sandboxes and things like that. We did mostly school stuff, like dictations, small tests, writing stories, drawing, etc. Aside from proficiency in English, I was well prepared for grade one regarding math, art, and science skills. Although there will most likely be a difference in progress for children whether the kindergarten is half-day or full-day, I don't believe it's a make-or-break factor. It all depends on how well the teacher can the kids, whether through play or not.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
McGuinty fights back
This will be just a quick post.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty says no to the newly revised sex ed curriculum. He says that although the intentions are good, this is not the way to deliver it, and the general public has reacted negatively to the new curriculum. People need to get used to the idea before implementing it province-wide.
For once, I am happy that we have such a Premier.
Firstly, I have no problem with the intentions. The gist of the new sex ed (as outlined in my previous post below) seems probable. Grade 6 does not seem to be too early for learning about homophobia, and grade 7 doesn't seem too early to talk about the "sexual acts".
Although the studies do show that kids are engaged in sexual activity a lot earlier than we would like them to be, and also the age has almost halved in the last decade, it's definite we should do something about this. However, it only seems that the professionals (aka profs, researchers, scientists) know about this, and parents are left in the dust.
I believe that we should educate the parents on what the issue is at hand before putting in a new curriculum on sex ed. Anyone would be shocked to find out that sex ed is beginning when we are 9 years old. Then afterwards, maybe we can ask the PTA or other parents via e-survey on what they feel would be a good option to educate their kids with.
I really think that the main problem here is that the parents are left behind. It's their kids that'll be affected, so really, we should talk to the parents before hastening a revised curriculum.
Besides. There are other things to fix, like the TTC, which was the best transportation system in the 70s. It's 2010 now, and we're still using little pieces of paper and metal coins. Come on, Toronto, Hong Kong and Singapore are using smart cards. Even the Netherlands are doing something of the same sort.
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty says no to the newly revised sex ed curriculum. He says that although the intentions are good, this is not the way to deliver it, and the general public has reacted negatively to the new curriculum. People need to get used to the idea before implementing it province-wide.
For once, I am happy that we have such a Premier.
Firstly, I have no problem with the intentions. The gist of the new sex ed (as outlined in my previous post below) seems probable. Grade 6 does not seem to be too early for learning about homophobia, and grade 7 doesn't seem too early to talk about the "sexual acts".
Although the studies do show that kids are engaged in sexual activity a lot earlier than we would like them to be, and also the age has almost halved in the last decade, it's definite we should do something about this. However, it only seems that the professionals (aka profs, researchers, scientists) know about this, and parents are left in the dust.
I believe that we should educate the parents on what the issue is at hand before putting in a new curriculum on sex ed. Anyone would be shocked to find out that sex ed is beginning when we are 9 years old. Then afterwards, maybe we can ask the PTA or other parents via e-survey on what they feel would be a good option to educate their kids with.
I really think that the main problem here is that the parents are left behind. It's their kids that'll be affected, so really, we should talk to the parents before hastening a revised curriculum.
Besides. There are other things to fix, like the TTC, which was the best transportation system in the 70s. It's 2010 now, and we're still using little pieces of paper and metal coins. Come on, Toronto, Hong Kong and Singapore are using smart cards. Even the Netherlands are doing something of the same sort.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Guidance counselors lack guidance
Most of us have suffered the unhelpful guidance of guidance counselors in high school to decide which post-secondary institution to go to, so why is it surprising to see that students give poor ratings to guidance counselors? Are they unfairly unappreciated?
As a former high school student, I have to agree with the American students that guidance counselors do not provide substantial nor effective advice to help us choose schools. 40% of American students believe that the guidance these counselors provided were only poor or fair for helping them think about their future careers.
The problem lies in the counselor's job description, which the name of the job conceals pretty well. Counselors are responsible for administrative tasks, discipline issues, crisis counseling, scheduling (former and present high school students know this all too well), lunchroom duties, study hall duties, standardized testing (I have not seen much of this in Toronto), attendance, truancy, and substitute teaching. This list alone has already taken up an entire paragraph. However, in Toronto, our guidance counselors do not handle standardized testing, attendance or truancy unless it is somehow linked to deviant student behaviour. With such a list, it is easy to see why guidance counselors receive such poor ratings for post-secondary institution decisions.
Guidance counselors should not be deemed responsible for some of the tasks, such as scheduling, lunchroom/study hall duties, attendance and truancy. Although we are past the stage of elementary school, where the school office handled the above duties except lunchroom/study hall duties, guidance counselors are staff who counsel students and provide them guidance, whether in their life or in school. They should not be handling school office tasks such as attendance and truancy, and teachers themselves should be the ones monitoring lunchrooms and study halls. Schools can hire school psychologists, or hire more administrative staff, but with budget cuts, this is probably not going to happen. Having guidance counselors be responsible in almost all fields is too much to ask for; as a result, they are not masters in any field. They only know a little bit of each, and that does not provide enough information for students.
Aside from the elaborate job description, another problem is that counselors are not taught university and college information in graduate school. Counselors earn a Master's degree, but they were never taught about financial aid or the university/college admission process. They learn on the job and many students suffer as a by-product. It is rather reasonable why they were not taught such dynamic concepts: each year, many schools change their admissions and scholarships, government financial aid is subject to change without notice. Changing the curriculum of graduate schools to suit the needs of separate colleges and separate financial aid may seem too much work for process that change annually. However, graduate schools can still teach about the general university/college admission process, and self-help school decisions books should definitely be included in the textbook lists.
With budget cuts on the rise (pardon the irony), guidance counselors are seen less important as time progresses. The processes would most likely remain as they are because of lesser funding, and partnered with poor ratings, job cuts would also be the common trend in schools, hence increasing the ratio, which will only produce worse effects than the present. Perhaps people should be hired for the jobs they are supposed to do instead of lumping everything into one.
As a former high school student, I have to agree with the American students that guidance counselors do not provide substantial nor effective advice to help us choose schools. 40% of American students believe that the guidance these counselors provided were only poor or fair for helping them think about their future careers.
The problem lies in the counselor's job description, which the name of the job conceals pretty well. Counselors are responsible for administrative tasks, discipline issues, crisis counseling, scheduling (former and present high school students know this all too well), lunchroom duties, study hall duties, standardized testing (I have not seen much of this in Toronto), attendance, truancy, and substitute teaching. This list alone has already taken up an entire paragraph. However, in Toronto, our guidance counselors do not handle standardized testing, attendance or truancy unless it is somehow linked to deviant student behaviour. With such a list, it is easy to see why guidance counselors receive such poor ratings for post-secondary institution decisions.
Guidance counselors should not be deemed responsible for some of the tasks, such as scheduling, lunchroom/study hall duties, attendance and truancy. Although we are past the stage of elementary school, where the school office handled the above duties except lunchroom/study hall duties, guidance counselors are staff who counsel students and provide them guidance, whether in their life or in school. They should not be handling school office tasks such as attendance and truancy, and teachers themselves should be the ones monitoring lunchrooms and study halls. Schools can hire school psychologists, or hire more administrative staff, but with budget cuts, this is probably not going to happen. Having guidance counselors be responsible in almost all fields is too much to ask for; as a result, they are not masters in any field. They only know a little bit of each, and that does not provide enough information for students.
Aside from the elaborate job description, another problem is that counselors are not taught university and college information in graduate school. Counselors earn a Master's degree, but they were never taught about financial aid or the university/college admission process. They learn on the job and many students suffer as a by-product. It is rather reasonable why they were not taught such dynamic concepts: each year, many schools change their admissions and scholarships, government financial aid is subject to change without notice. Changing the curriculum of graduate schools to suit the needs of separate colleges and separate financial aid may seem too much work for process that change annually. However, graduate schools can still teach about the general university/college admission process, and self-help school decisions books should definitely be included in the textbook lists.
With budget cuts on the rise (pardon the irony), guidance counselors are seen less important as time progresses. The processes would most likely remain as they are because of lesser funding, and partnered with poor ratings, job cuts would also be the common trend in schools, hence increasing the ratio, which will only produce worse effects than the present. Perhaps people should be hired for the jobs they are supposed to do instead of lumping everything into one.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Dumbing it down for the dumb
There's going to be a revised curriculum for elementary school, I think mainly the primary grades. Not only are students complaining about the "unreasonably high" load of homework given to them, but parents and teachers are also filing complaints. The whiners are also saying that the material is becoming too difficult for the students' brains, which have not developed the mental capacity needed to grasp the learning content yet. Hence, the curriculum is sent to the gallows for some quick cuts, and the provincial standard for math is lowered (math is just one of the main subjects that are being chopped crudely, but other subjects are also under fire).
Of course, the Asian parents (pardon the stereotype) and also some Caucasian ones are against this new curriculum. One Asian parent commented that right now, her daughter is in grade 8 and doing the same level of math as a third grader is doing in China. That's pretty embarrassing. Some Caucasian parents don't see anything wrong with the old curriculum, and inquire for the core reason of changing it. They've handled the math and their teachers taught them well, and there was nothing wrong then. The only thing that is different between now and then is possible human evolution, but certainly our children can't be moving backwards on the evolution chain.
It's ridiculous that they have to change the curriculum. It is completely untrue that the children cannot grasp such mathematical (or otherwise) concepts. I have lived through my primary grades and came out perfectly intact: no emotional turmoil, no psychological scarring, no physical harm. Then again, I was enrolled in a Saturday school program in which the subjects taught at said centre were half a year in advance compared to ordinary school because even the slowest (aka me) would take only half a year to absorb the content. By the time we need to use it in normal school, we would have already understood the topic in and out.
We have to keep in mind that there are people who have survived said harsh primary grades without any outside help, so really there is no good reason to revise the curriculum.
Assuming that the future generation is not evolving backwardly, and that their brains should be even more advanced than ours, the core of the problem is not that the material is too hard. If it seems so, then have the teachers do their job properly: teach the students until they learn it. I'm aiming to be a teacher myself, and I believe that one of the foundations of being a teacher is to make sure your student understands the material. Teachers who complain that the material is too hard for their students are only looking for an easy way out. Parents should not be complaining at all; if they think it is too difficult, then most likely their own education has eroded.
Canada is only the 5th top country for best-ranked education. Kudos to us for being in the top 5, but we shouldn't stop there. If we water down our curriculum, the kids are going to be even less prepared to enter high school, and the stress will carry them throughout high school until senior year, and into university. First year university/college drop out rates and high school drop out rates are still unfavourably high, and toning down the curriculum will not make it better. Additional consequences include a drop in our ranking. Less visa students, and our global reputation is slowly destroyed. I'm not an Econ major, but our economy could deteriorate.
The solution is to have schools or school districts to hold remedial programs, peer tutor programs, or have teachers offer extra help outside of their school time. Teachers' job hours aren't the regular 9-3. Being a teacher requires you to bring out your compassionate side to connect with the students.
In conclusion, dumbing it down for the dumb will not work. This can (and probably will) ruin our global reputation, take away the appeal from our country as an educated developed country and render our future generations incapable of being able to work in international settings.
Next post: Africentric schools
Of course, the Asian parents (pardon the stereotype) and also some Caucasian ones are against this new curriculum. One Asian parent commented that right now, her daughter is in grade 8 and doing the same level of math as a third grader is doing in China. That's pretty embarrassing. Some Caucasian parents don't see anything wrong with the old curriculum, and inquire for the core reason of changing it. They've handled the math and their teachers taught them well, and there was nothing wrong then. The only thing that is different between now and then is possible human evolution, but certainly our children can't be moving backwards on the evolution chain.
It's ridiculous that they have to change the curriculum. It is completely untrue that the children cannot grasp such mathematical (or otherwise) concepts. I have lived through my primary grades and came out perfectly intact: no emotional turmoil, no psychological scarring, no physical harm. Then again, I was enrolled in a Saturday school program in which the subjects taught at said centre were half a year in advance compared to ordinary school because even the slowest (aka me) would take only half a year to absorb the content. By the time we need to use it in normal school, we would have already understood the topic in and out.
We have to keep in mind that there are people who have survived said harsh primary grades without any outside help, so really there is no good reason to revise the curriculum.
Assuming that the future generation is not evolving backwardly, and that their brains should be even more advanced than ours, the core of the problem is not that the material is too hard. If it seems so, then have the teachers do their job properly: teach the students until they learn it. I'm aiming to be a teacher myself, and I believe that one of the foundations of being a teacher is to make sure your student understands the material. Teachers who complain that the material is too hard for their students are only looking for an easy way out. Parents should not be complaining at all; if they think it is too difficult, then most likely their own education has eroded.
Canada is only the 5th top country for best-ranked education. Kudos to us for being in the top 5, but we shouldn't stop there. If we water down our curriculum, the kids are going to be even less prepared to enter high school, and the stress will carry them throughout high school until senior year, and into university. First year university/college drop out rates and high school drop out rates are still unfavourably high, and toning down the curriculum will not make it better. Additional consequences include a drop in our ranking. Less visa students, and our global reputation is slowly destroyed. I'm not an Econ major, but our economy could deteriorate.
The solution is to have schools or school districts to hold remedial programs, peer tutor programs, or have teachers offer extra help outside of their school time. Teachers' job hours aren't the regular 9-3. Being a teacher requires you to bring out your compassionate side to connect with the students.
In conclusion, dumbing it down for the dumb will not work. This can (and probably will) ruin our global reputation, take away the appeal from our country as an educated developed country and render our future generations incapable of being able to work in international settings.
Next post: Africentric schools
Thursday, April 8, 2010
The new grading system
So I haven't written in this thing for a while. I'm still aiming to adopt some sort of theme for this so people might actually read this and subscribe. I'm not so sure I want to follow astrology as I want to follow on current events. I think current events would be more interesting, so I shall do that instead.
In the meantime, I just want to introduce anyone-who's-reading-this to schmoyoho, a Youtube user who (along with several others) compose ATTNs: AutoTune The News. It's a mix of politics (and sometimes news) with humour, autotuning their speeches and adding their own flair to things. Their newest ATTN (which is the 11th) is here but it isn't the best. Visit schmoyoho for more of their ATTNs!
_________________________________
So the current thing I want to talk about today is the new grading system for elementary school (grades 1 to 8). Instead of the regular A/B/C/D/R system we've all been accustomed to, and not to mention, know the meanings of off by heart, they decided to change it to:
- PWD = Progressing with Difficulty
- PW = Progressing Well
- PVW = Progressing very Well
They say that this maps out the students' progress more accurately instead of just comparing them to other students.
As a rebuttal, who ever said we're comparing to other students? The ABC system is compared to the provincial standard, not seeing if Johnny gets 7/10 and has the most correct questions, then he gets an A. No, we're supposed to match the students' progress and achievements to the provincial standard. If they meet them, then they can be functional citizens in our society. If they can't, then there should be remedial help provided because that is what schools and teachers are supposed to do.
Another argument is saying that it will hurt the feelings of the students knowing they achieved a C or below. I guess this is understandable for grades 3 and lower, but for grade 8? Is this necessary? They'll be using the ABC system in high school and university; should we change the grading systems in those educational institutions as well? Students need to learn how to handle with such situations when they are young so they don't become "traumatized" later. Besides, if the pain hits later, that'll plunge them into further despair and confusion because they would not have ever confronted that situation before. Sugar-coating would only cripple future students. Ludicrous.
Even with the current grading system, many first year students drop out of university or college because they feel that high school has left them unprepared. Our no-fail policy further enunciates this problem: pass the students and they're out of our hair, we match the provincial quota, we get our paycheques, we move on with life. Money is certainly important, and pass rates are important too (which is why the Afrocentric schools have been built in the first place, yes?) but we need to be concerned about what these students are absorbing into their brains. We should be getting to the core of the problem: why are drop out rates so high? Why do students feel unprepared going to post-secondary institutions? Why are they not meeting the provincial standard?
Supporters of the PWD/PW/PVW system also claim that teachers can write comments about homework completion, participation, etc in a comment area. Not sure if any one has brought this up in the board meetings, but there was already a comment area for teachers to write about said topics. There was even a checklist that listed these topics and the students' positions: NI (needs improvement), S (satisfactory), G (good) and E (excellent). So why this new system?
Finally, these special fancy words don't hide anything. Everyone already knows that PWD is a C or below, PW is most likely a B, and PVW is an A and above. If everyone already knows the meanings behind these words, there is really no point in conjuring up an entire new system to be taught at Teacher's College. Similar to this education-changing event and the knowledge of its predecessor, Ryerson University is still considered a college at best by most. Names don't matter. It's the meaning behind them. Shakespeare was right when wrote that a rose would smell just as sweet by any other name. Skunk, feces, gonorrhea, diarrhea, vomit, etc as a name for said flower would not change its scent, its appearance, its colour or any of its properties at all. A name is just a name. There is absolutely no point to sugar-coat the problem for the students, and thus no point to concocting some brand new sparkly potion to cure our drop rates and slight depressions of receiving a C.
Really guys. Do you think the CEO of IBM will sugar-coat your letter of being fired? I don't think so. The real world is tough. It's mean. It's scary. It can scar you. Driving can cause deaths, but we teach students defensive maneuvers. This method of sugar-coating is not defensive: it's crippling. If kids are supposed to be our future, then we will definitely have a gloomy, depressive future, lost on how to handle bad situations.
Our world will, to say the least, be going to hell.
In the meantime, I just want to introduce anyone-who's-reading-this to schmoyoho, a Youtube user who (along with several others) compose ATTNs: AutoTune The News. It's a mix of politics (and sometimes news) with humour, autotuning their speeches and adding their own flair to things. Their newest ATTN (which is the 11th) is here but it isn't the best. Visit schmoyoho for more of their ATTNs!
_________________________________
So the current thing I want to talk about today is the new grading system for elementary school (grades 1 to 8). Instead of the regular A/B/C/D/R system we've all been accustomed to, and not to mention, know the meanings of off by heart, they decided to change it to:
- PWD = Progressing with Difficulty
- PW = Progressing Well
- PVW = Progressing very Well
They say that this maps out the students' progress more accurately instead of just comparing them to other students.
As a rebuttal, who ever said we're comparing to other students? The ABC system is compared to the provincial standard, not seeing if Johnny gets 7/10 and has the most correct questions, then he gets an A. No, we're supposed to match the students' progress and achievements to the provincial standard. If they meet them, then they can be functional citizens in our society. If they can't, then there should be remedial help provided because that is what schools and teachers are supposed to do.
Another argument is saying that it will hurt the feelings of the students knowing they achieved a C or below. I guess this is understandable for grades 3 and lower, but for grade 8? Is this necessary? They'll be using the ABC system in high school and university; should we change the grading systems in those educational institutions as well? Students need to learn how to handle with such situations when they are young so they don't become "traumatized" later. Besides, if the pain hits later, that'll plunge them into further despair and confusion because they would not have ever confronted that situation before. Sugar-coating would only cripple future students. Ludicrous.
Even with the current grading system, many first year students drop out of university or college because they feel that high school has left them unprepared. Our no-fail policy further enunciates this problem: pass the students and they're out of our hair, we match the provincial quota, we get our paycheques, we move on with life. Money is certainly important, and pass rates are important too (which is why the Afrocentric schools have been built in the first place, yes?) but we need to be concerned about what these students are absorbing into their brains. We should be getting to the core of the problem: why are drop out rates so high? Why do students feel unprepared going to post-secondary institutions? Why are they not meeting the provincial standard?
Supporters of the PWD/PW/PVW system also claim that teachers can write comments about homework completion, participation, etc in a comment area. Not sure if any one has brought this up in the board meetings, but there was already a comment area for teachers to write about said topics. There was even a checklist that listed these topics and the students' positions: NI (needs improvement), S (satisfactory), G (good) and E (excellent). So why this new system?
Finally, these special fancy words don't hide anything. Everyone already knows that PWD is a C or below, PW is most likely a B, and PVW is an A and above. If everyone already knows the meanings behind these words, there is really no point in conjuring up an entire new system to be taught at Teacher's College. Similar to this education-changing event and the knowledge of its predecessor, Ryerson University is still considered a college at best by most. Names don't matter. It's the meaning behind them. Shakespeare was right when wrote that a rose would smell just as sweet by any other name. Skunk, feces, gonorrhea, diarrhea, vomit, etc as a name for said flower would not change its scent, its appearance, its colour or any of its properties at all. A name is just a name. There is absolutely no point to sugar-coat the problem for the students, and thus no point to concocting some brand new sparkly potion to cure our drop rates and slight depressions of receiving a C.
Really guys. Do you think the CEO of IBM will sugar-coat your letter of being fired? I don't think so. The real world is tough. It's mean. It's scary. It can scar you. Driving can cause deaths, but we teach students defensive maneuvers. This method of sugar-coating is not defensive: it's crippling. If kids are supposed to be our future, then we will definitely have a gloomy, depressive future, lost on how to handle bad situations.
Our world will, to say the least, be going to hell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
