The reason behind this blog is so I can rant and rave about why American public education is in such a sorry state. It saves me from annoying my wife and from stopping strangers on the street to listen to my great, terrific, stupendous ideas for improving American education.
These days, rather than merely letting things get worse, there are people actively working to make things worse. It's as if they're working toward reducing the number of children who, upon graduating from high school, have actually gotten an education that will enable them to function in society, get a job, and be able to learn and pass on the hard lessons learned from thousands of years of human civilization. Maybe "No Child Left Behind" was an empty slogan, but now were seeing the tacit promotion of - all children left behind.
Part of that promotion is "antiracist grading." I'd never heard of it before, but after reading this article, I think some alleged experts are stretching their alleged expertise into a Bizarro world.
First, I want to challenge the assumption of your question—the term "fall behind" is a social construct. This idea of where a person should be is not a naturally occurring thing. We know from child development psychologist Jean Piaget that all people develop differently and grow at different paces.
And yet, we do know that there is a certain body of knowledge that a person needs in order to navigate life. Yes, children grow and learn at different paces, but the current Covid-related dependence on online school is slowing down the learning process for a large number of children.
Instead of the absurd focus on and twisting of grading practices, how about moving that focus to teaching children to read? While you're at it, throw in lessons on writing and spelling. If you have time after those lessons, some math couldn't hurt. When I say "math" of course, I'm referring to teaching children how to DO math; computation and all that jazz.
One thing we understand from Universal Design for Learning is that there are multiple ways a kid can express their knowing. And so if you know 2+2=4, one way you can express your knowing is by writing it. Another way you can express your knowing is by discussing it. A third way is by creating a model that shows it. A fourth way is by illustrating it and a fifth way is by performing a play. But in too many schools, only one way is considered legitimate. So if you write it, you get an A and that's it. There might be 100 kids in the school who know 2+2=4, but if only two of those kids can write it, then only two of those kids will receive As. That is profoundly discriminatory.
Maybe I'm taking this argument too literally, but being able to express an idea succinctly so that others can understand it would signal that a student understands the concept. In the case of math, to me, that means being able to do the math. If you can write a play showing that 2+2=4, you can certainly figure out the equation.
The second thing I would eliminate is the ideology of transactional gratitude. In most academic spaces, there is a silent pact that teachers make with students: I will agree to teach you well if you demonstrate to me that you are thankful for it. And if you do not demonstrate to me that you are thankful for it, I will withhold quality teaching from you.
This is just insulting to every hard-working teacher who tries to reach every student in spite of all of the roadblocks set up against proper teaching. "Antiracist grading" seems to me to be one more roadblock.
No comments:
Post a Comment