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.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Moving backwards in history
Toronto's first Africentric school opened on September 8, 2009. Everyone's celebrating about how the Black people can learn about their culture and history and so forth, hooray. The Blacks' history won't be ignored! Kudos!
Not really.
What we are currently doing is taking apart the work done by the people who fought for unsegregated schools in the 60s. People died in that reform, lost their careers, some even their families. Now we are passing a bill saying, "Let's open a Black school where students are Black and the staff are also Black so we can learn about Black culture and Black history."
I have nothing against learning different cultures; it provides a new set of perspectives in life, but to pass a bill and establish a school using taxpayer money? Most taxpayers aren't even Black, and what if we don't support Africentric schools because of some issues?
Some people believe that by performing "affirmative action", we are eliminating racism because racism is renowned for discriminating others and putting our race as superior over the others. However, I have never seen the point of affirmative action because it is only a different name for
racism. Supporters of affirmative action say that it just highlights the discriminated race without discriminating other races. That's fine, but in this case it's going to raise some issues, partly because it's intertwined in the legal system. We open the Africentric schools because we want to focus on Black history and its role in Canadian history, but what about other groups who were also involved in Canadian history, such as the Chinese (and the opium case), or the Natives. Should we also open an Aboriginal school for them to specifically learn their history?
The following issues will discuss about the role of Africentric schools in Education.
Africentric schools are only around the elementary level. They may learn about their Black history and culture, but what do they do after grade 8? Presently, high schools are not Africentric, nor do they cover much of Black history. When they graduate the post-elementary institutions will remove their focus away from Black history. To emphasize the importance of Black history in schools, implementing only Africentric elementary schools will not go far because there are no later institutions which can reinforce the importance of Black history, hence the effort and intentions of Africentric schools go to waste. Not only does the emphasis of Black history become lost in the later years, but the standards would most likely be different than "normal" elementary schools because the purpose of Africentric schools is to decrease the ridiculously high 40% drop out rate. How else do we lower the drop out rate other than lowering our standards so many more students are passing? Lying to ourselves and dumbing down the curriculum (similar to my post of "Dumbing it down for the dumb") will not work, and it will only produce non-functional citizens into our already not-so-productive society.
As a poor rebuttal from one of the Trustees who voted in favour of Africentric schools, Donna Harrow states that "No one ever said little white cihldren couldn't come to this school." This is a poor defense, to say the least, because the Africentric school has already gained a bad reputation in the bill. It's true that nobody is rejecting white children as students, but they would reject teachers who do not have enough "African" percentage in their ancestry, so they are prohibited to teach in an Africentric school.
As I have stated earlier in this post, should we also open schools for the Latino/Latina students who are also suffering a high drop out rate? And how about other groups who want to have their culture emphasized as well? Currently, there are Saturday school credit programs (meaning these courses count towards your high school credits) which do teach culture and history of a certain ethnic group, such as Chinese (both Cantonese and Mandarin), Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Urdu, Punjabi, Swahili, and many more languages. We don't need to open up a new school with a new curriculum to teach. If these Saturday school programs were more publicized in the school system and more known to teachers, then we don't need to spend non-Black taxpayer money building a Black school which their non-Black children will never go to.
Furthermore, even if we see drop out rates lower significantly because of these Africentric schools, Africentric schools will still keep their bad reputation because African-Canadians still remain as a minority, and we don't know what goes on in Africentric schools. We still don't clearly know the widely publicized private schools and their inner systems.
The solution is not to open up a new school, because we can avoid it. We can introduce the aforementioned Saturday school programs, or even change the history curriculum to include histories of racial groups involved: the Natives' view, the Blacks' view, the Chinese view, the Korean view, etc. Instead of always only teaching the "White" view of history, we can teach children about all the different views.
Moreover, we can have separate courses in high school for these, such as: "The European Perspective: 20th century Canada", "The Aboriginal Perspective: 20th century Canada", "The ... Perspective: 20th century Canada", and so forth. If that is even too much work, then just have a little brief history from each perspective entailed in the elementary school and high school history curriculum. Universities are already splitting the courses based on perspective, as I have put in an example in the above paragraph. We don't need an entirely new type of school. We
need a better curriculum.
I also have to agree with Courtney Betty, who is a lawyer for the mother of C.W. Jeffreys. She says that this is all a mirage: the education board hasn't really done anything, but by implementing Africentric schools, it will look like they have done something. What they have really done is made a short cut for kids who are part of that drop out rate so they can lower it and make Toronto look like a better place.
Once again, there is no clear-cut remedy, but if we want to help our children learn about their culture (if this is the real reason for Africentric schools), then have the parents teach them about their heritage, or send them to heritage classes and heritage school, which do exist in a multiculturally diverse setting such as Toronto. If the schools were opened to lower the 40% drop out rate among African-Canadians, then have remedial programs implemented in the school instead of opening a new school "for the dumb", harshly put.
Africentric schools can only provide short-term success. The education board should not only look for ways to carry them to the next election, but they should (and we should also) look for long-term solutions that can significantly lower the drop out rate, not by supplying an "alternative school". These children are not leftovers, but we are treating them like they are. The core of the problem is not what the material is, but how it is taught. We need to re-educate our teachers and our future teachers on effective and efficient teaching.
Next post: high school counselors receive poor ratings for helping students with college decisions.
Not really.
What we are currently doing is taking apart the work done by the people who fought for unsegregated schools in the 60s. People died in that reform, lost their careers, some even their families. Now we are passing a bill saying, "Let's open a Black school where students are Black and the staff are also Black so we can learn about Black culture and Black history."
I have nothing against learning different cultures; it provides a new set of perspectives in life, but to pass a bill and establish a school using taxpayer money? Most taxpayers aren't even Black, and what if we don't support Africentric schools because of some issues?
Some people believe that by performing "affirmative action", we are eliminating racism because racism is renowned for discriminating others and putting our race as superior over the others. However, I have never seen the point of affirmative action because it is only a different name for
racism. Supporters of affirmative action say that it just highlights the discriminated race without discriminating other races. That's fine, but in this case it's going to raise some issues, partly because it's intertwined in the legal system. We open the Africentric schools because we want to focus on Black history and its role in Canadian history, but what about other groups who were also involved in Canadian history, such as the Chinese (and the opium case), or the Natives. Should we also open an Aboriginal school for them to specifically learn their history?
The following issues will discuss about the role of Africentric schools in Education.
Africentric schools are only around the elementary level. They may learn about their Black history and culture, but what do they do after grade 8? Presently, high schools are not Africentric, nor do they cover much of Black history. When they graduate the post-elementary institutions will remove their focus away from Black history. To emphasize the importance of Black history in schools, implementing only Africentric elementary schools will not go far because there are no later institutions which can reinforce the importance of Black history, hence the effort and intentions of Africentric schools go to waste. Not only does the emphasis of Black history become lost in the later years, but the standards would most likely be different than "normal" elementary schools because the purpose of Africentric schools is to decrease the ridiculously high 40% drop out rate. How else do we lower the drop out rate other than lowering our standards so many more students are passing? Lying to ourselves and dumbing down the curriculum (similar to my post of "Dumbing it down for the dumb") will not work, and it will only produce non-functional citizens into our already not-so-productive society.
As a poor rebuttal from one of the Trustees who voted in favour of Africentric schools, Donna Harrow states that "No one ever said little white cihldren couldn't come to this school." This is a poor defense, to say the least, because the Africentric school has already gained a bad reputation in the bill. It's true that nobody is rejecting white children as students, but they would reject teachers who do not have enough "African" percentage in their ancestry, so they are prohibited to teach in an Africentric school.
As I have stated earlier in this post, should we also open schools for the Latino/Latina students who are also suffering a high drop out rate? And how about other groups who want to have their culture emphasized as well? Currently, there are Saturday school credit programs (meaning these courses count towards your high school credits) which do teach culture and history of a certain ethnic group, such as Chinese (both Cantonese and Mandarin), Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Urdu, Punjabi, Swahili, and many more languages. We don't need to open up a new school with a new curriculum to teach. If these Saturday school programs were more publicized in the school system and more known to teachers, then we don't need to spend non-Black taxpayer money building a Black school which their non-Black children will never go to.
Furthermore, even if we see drop out rates lower significantly because of these Africentric schools, Africentric schools will still keep their bad reputation because African-Canadians still remain as a minority, and we don't know what goes on in Africentric schools. We still don't clearly know the widely publicized private schools and their inner systems.
The solution is not to open up a new school, because we can avoid it. We can introduce the aforementioned Saturday school programs, or even change the history curriculum to include histories of racial groups involved: the Natives' view, the Blacks' view, the Chinese view, the Korean view, etc. Instead of always only teaching the "White" view of history, we can teach children about all the different views.
Moreover, we can have separate courses in high school for these, such as: "The European Perspective: 20th century Canada", "The Aboriginal Perspective: 20th century Canada", "The ... Perspective: 20th century Canada", and so forth. If that is even too much work, then just have a little brief history from each perspective entailed in the elementary school and high school history curriculum. Universities are already splitting the courses based on perspective, as I have put in an example in the above paragraph. We don't need an entirely new type of school. We
need a better curriculum.
I also have to agree with Courtney Betty, who is a lawyer for the mother of C.W. Jeffreys. She says that this is all a mirage: the education board hasn't really done anything, but by implementing Africentric schools, it will look like they have done something. What they have really done is made a short cut for kids who are part of that drop out rate so they can lower it and make Toronto look like a better place.
Once again, there is no clear-cut remedy, but if we want to help our children learn about their culture (if this is the real reason for Africentric schools), then have the parents teach them about their heritage, or send them to heritage classes and heritage school, which do exist in a multiculturally diverse setting such as Toronto. If the schools were opened to lower the 40% drop out rate among African-Canadians, then have remedial programs implemented in the school instead of opening a new school "for the dumb", harshly put.
Africentric schools can only provide short-term success. The education board should not only look for ways to carry them to the next election, but they should (and we should also) look for long-term solutions that can significantly lower the drop out rate, not by supplying an "alternative school". These children are not leftovers, but we are treating them like they are. The core of the problem is not what the material is, but how it is taught. We need to re-educate our teachers and our future teachers on effective and efficient teaching.
Next post: high school counselors receive poor ratings for helping students with college decisions.
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
Obama's "socialism"
I'm playing the Devil's advocate here, but why is everyone so against Obama's health care reform? I love how the people who are against the reform are saying all like, "omg it's so socialist!" What the hell guys, this is not socialism. I know, I know, some people say that by having the state able to control a major institution like the hospital and such, we'll be too dependent and stuff on Obama, and he could break us in half if he wanted to.
Really guys? Really? |: What he's doing right now is erasing the economic barrier for getting the health care humans need to survive. Is providing vital necessities so socialist? Should I take away your food and water too, because providing them would be too socialist? The society has gone so deep into capitalism that it's pretty dang stupid to consider any type of fairness as socialist. Yes, it's true that Soviet Russia failed miserably, but this doesn't mean America's going to be like that.
Yeah so the major corporations like IBM and Microsoft will lose more than a few bucks funding the poor folk's health care. What is a couple million going to seem like for IBM? Then people are going to complain about how the plain folk (aka us) are going to be digging from the graves of our wallets to fund for such poor folk. You know, this could be remedied quite easily if a new tax law was in place according to the incomes of individuals (and companies) instead of just putting a state-wide tax law that kills the lower folk.
We're in 2010, and we're depriving people of their vital needs because they don't have enough money. Doesn't this sound absurd and, might I say, morally wrong? Using money to determine the value of a life: what type of message is that going to send to the future generation?
PS. I'm Canadian. I love my health care. I'm a normal citizen. I've heard of stories where Americans broke their legs and that's $30k down the drain. In Ontario? The health care covers it. So yeah tease us about our igloos, but at least we'll be treated for hypothermia for free rather than sleeping on streets with frost bite on our noses.
I may be studying sociology, but really, it only takes one and a half brain cells to figure out that Obama is not trying to steal rights from citizens. He's trying to give them opportunities. Placing a price on health, rather, is taking away the right to life. Some food for thought.
My next post might be about the Afrocentric schools or the newly introduced watered-down curriculum.
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.
Friday, April 2, 2010
First day of driver's ed.
It was really scary. D:
Who knew that cars would have a delay reaction of 0.4 seconds? ._. As a result of being blunt to this, either the car was a heat missile when I pressed the gas pedal, or it experienced its first wave of sugar wearing off when I pressed the brake. I finally got a hold of this wild thing, and so turning wasn't as rocky as it was in the first 10 minutes. So yeah a tip for the future: press lightly and gradually on the pedals!
Turning took a while to get used to because it was absolutely not the same as turning while you're walking. I had to do extravagantly excessive motions of wrenching the wheel in the right direction 180 to 270 degrees, then whip it back to normal because I keep forgetting to let it rotate itself after I've entered the curve. So yeah, I almost crashed into the curb and an oncoming car D: Tip for the future? Keep the excessive, but remember to let the wheel rotate, and also slow down to 20km/h when turning.
It was like the world decided to hate me today. There were so many people out: bikers, tiny toddler bikers, strollers, families (in duck formation), and the worst: guys playing street hockey in the middle of the street! The last one really freaked me out because it was like, "How do I maneuver around that?" but I eventually did it anyway with the help of the instructor. I know it's Good Friday, but c'mon guys, I'm trying to sustain my clean driver's record.
So yeah all in all, today was pretty scary. In summary, I almost crashed into a car, and turning left was horrifying, to say the least. Luckily I was only driving in the neighbourhood, so it wasn't like the Glendon intersection where a one-way splits into two, and a two merges into a one. I had to drive around the school area, so yeahhhh a whole ton of children.
My mom wanted to book Monday for driving as well. ):
But that isn't the worst thing.
I have to drive at 10:30 in the morning tomorrow! I hope I'll be awake and alert enough. D:
Who knew that cars would have a delay reaction of 0.4 seconds? ._. As a result of being blunt to this, either the car was a heat missile when I pressed the gas pedal, or it experienced its first wave of sugar wearing off when I pressed the brake. I finally got a hold of this wild thing, and so turning wasn't as rocky as it was in the first 10 minutes. So yeah a tip for the future: press lightly and gradually on the pedals!
Turning took a while to get used to because it was absolutely not the same as turning while you're walking. I had to do extravagantly excessive motions of wrenching the wheel in the right direction 180 to 270 degrees, then whip it back to normal because I keep forgetting to let it rotate itself after I've entered the curve. So yeah, I almost crashed into the curb and an oncoming car D: Tip for the future? Keep the excessive, but remember to let the wheel rotate, and also slow down to 20km/h when turning.
It was like the world decided to hate me today. There were so many people out: bikers, tiny toddler bikers, strollers, families (in duck formation), and the worst: guys playing street hockey in the middle of the street! The last one really freaked me out because it was like, "How do I maneuver around that?" but I eventually did it anyway with the help of the instructor. I know it's Good Friday, but c'mon guys, I'm trying to sustain my clean driver's record.
So yeah all in all, today was pretty scary. In summary, I almost crashed into a car, and turning left was horrifying, to say the least. Luckily I was only driving in the neighbourhood, so it wasn't like the Glendon intersection where a one-way splits into two, and a two merges into a one. I had to drive around the school area, so yeahhhh a whole ton of children.
My mom wanted to book Monday for driving as well. ):
But that isn't the worst thing.
I have to drive at 10:30 in the morning tomorrow! I hope I'll be awake and alert enough. D:
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Free at last! (but not really) D:
Today was my last day in my school year. I am officially done my first university year: 2009-2010! I'm so happy. I'm actually a second year student now, which means I really should be more mature, but that probably won't happen anytime soon! Unfortunately, I have summer school: Children's Literature and Critical Thinking. Children's Lit will be fun for sure: I've read over 70% of the books on the textbook list, so it should be a piece of cake. Critical thinking: not so much. A few friends took it and they said it was most likely the most horrible course they have ever taken. I hope it isn't really as terrible as they say it is, or else I have just drained my entire summer ):
Anyway, I'm not really free, because tomorrow will be my first day in driver's education. Hopefully I won't crash into anything. Mom says my driving skills should be as good as hers, but who's to know? My dad can't really drive because it's always like a spastic horse when he drives, but with mom it's good, and so I'll be stuck in the 50/50 mark. At least this whole driving school thing ends around May-ish, so it won't interfere much with my summer school courses, which end on July 30, and the exams run 'til mid-August. D:
I'm just really glad that I chose this campus in this school (for the program I want). Of course, today I met a real campus-er, and it was rather disturbing. My sweater was zipped up to just above my stomach, and underneath is a t-shirt. So this guy who's a friend of a group member came, we talked (all of us), and he reached over trying to like, open my sweater and pulling it down past my shoulders to "see the t-shirt design". Yeah it was just really weird. I guess the rep with my school stays as strong as ever. ):
Aside from that awkward experience of today, I really loved my first year (despite le français, bien sûr!) Perhaps I should try and write a post completely in French just to test out how well I've improved (if any, haha). Alors, je suis très heureuse parce que j'ai mis quelques bonnes personnes qui deviennent mes amis plus tard. Beaucoup de ces personnes sont dans la programme de sociologie qui est ma majeure aussi! Après quelques mois, j'ai l'idée que les personnes dans la programme de sociologie sont les plus gentil(le)s.
Okay I think that's enough French for now. Anyway, I can't wait for driver's ed, but I wish my mom didn't book the day right after my sentence ended. D:
Anyway, I'm not really free, because tomorrow will be my first day in driver's education. Hopefully I won't crash into anything. Mom says my driving skills should be as good as hers, but who's to know? My dad can't really drive because it's always like a spastic horse when he drives, but with mom it's good, and so I'll be stuck in the 50/50 mark. At least this whole driving school thing ends around May-ish, so it won't interfere much with my summer school courses, which end on July 30, and the exams run 'til mid-August. D:
I'm just really glad that I chose this campus in this school (for the program I want). Of course, today I met a real campus-er, and it was rather disturbing. My sweater was zipped up to just above my stomach, and underneath is a t-shirt. So this guy who's a friend of a group member came, we talked (all of us), and he reached over trying to like, open my sweater and pulling it down past my shoulders to "see the t-shirt design". Yeah it was just really weird. I guess the rep with my school stays as strong as ever. ):
Aside from that awkward experience of today, I really loved my first year (despite le français, bien sûr!) Perhaps I should try and write a post completely in French just to test out how well I've improved (if any, haha). Alors, je suis très heureuse parce que j'ai mis quelques bonnes personnes qui deviennent mes amis plus tard. Beaucoup de ces personnes sont dans la programme de sociologie qui est ma majeure aussi! Après quelques mois, j'ai l'idée que les personnes dans la programme de sociologie sont les plus gentil(le)s.
Okay I think that's enough French for now. Anyway, I can't wait for driver's ed, but I wish my mom didn't book the day right after my sentence ended. D:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
