Brenton
Schools for Learning not Competition
December 6th 2007 14:31
We hear this idea a lot- we need to know if our kids are winning. Winning what? Just winning. Right.
Winning at life, presumably. However, if we need a system where there are winners, then inherently we need losers.
So we produce a system whereby we have to judge our students harshly. And as we do, we send a clear message to our failing students – give up. You have failed. You are a failure. There are two types of people, winners and losers, and you are a loser.
You may think I exaggerate here. I wish I were. However, this is a prevailing attitude in many areas. In ‘Dumbing Down’ Geoffrey Blainey attacks proponents of ‘Outcomes Based Education’ for being suspicious of “Competitive examination,” and for perceiving failing students to be “unfair to the failures.”
While Blainy does explore some reasonable arguments in this introduction, I take issue with his dismissive tone here. Firstly, it sounds all very professional to promote ‘competitive exams’. However, who are the students competing against? Each other? Why? Is there some kind of shortage in Australia of passing marks? The drought means we can’t grow enough A ’s for everyone? If students are competing, it should be against themselves – to try and improve themselves. Otherwise, the suggestion seems to be to make tests just hard enough to make sure we have some students who can be treated as winners, and some treated as losers.
Blainey also demonstrates another all too common attitude. The quote I have used states that he feels it to be problematic the idea that failing students is ‘unfair to the failures’.
I find this problematic, the ease at which one may simply, publicly find fault with a system that does not work on the basis of winners and losers, and criticize systems that seek to give failing students a fighting chance.
Ultimately, it sounds good and noble to complain that schools are wimpy, afraid of competition and mollycoddle failures. However, making students compete against each other is not giving each student the best chance at life. Dividing students into failures and successes while in lower grades, rather then maximizing a students potential for real success does not help anyone.
We win or lose by how we choose. Let's support the idea that each child can be supported enough to make those winning choices.
IMAGE.
Winning at life, presumably. However, if we need a system where there are winners, then inherently we need losers.
So we produce a system whereby we have to judge our students harshly. And as we do, we send a clear message to our failing students – give up. You have failed. You are a failure. There are two types of people, winners and losers, and you are a loser.
You may think I exaggerate here. I wish I were. However, this is a prevailing attitude in many areas. In ‘Dumbing Down’ Geoffrey Blainey attacks proponents of ‘Outcomes Based Education’ for being suspicious of “Competitive examination,” and for perceiving failing students to be “unfair to the failures.”
Is this the message we want to give to kids early on?
While Blainy does explore some reasonable arguments in this introduction, I take issue with his dismissive tone here. Firstly, it sounds all very professional to promote ‘competitive exams’. However, who are the students competing against? Each other? Why? Is there some kind of shortage in Australia of passing marks? The drought means we can’t grow enough A ’s for everyone? If students are competing, it should be against themselves – to try and improve themselves. Otherwise, the suggestion seems to be to make tests just hard enough to make sure we have some students who can be treated as winners, and some treated as losers.
Blainey also demonstrates another all too common attitude. The quote I have used states that he feels it to be problematic the idea that failing students is ‘unfair to the failures’.
I find this problematic, the ease at which one may simply, publicly find fault with a system that does not work on the basis of winners and losers, and criticize systems that seek to give failing students a fighting chance.
Ultimately, it sounds good and noble to complain that schools are wimpy, afraid of competition and mollycoddle failures. However, making students compete against each other is not giving each student the best chance at life. Dividing students into failures and successes while in lower grades, rather then maximizing a students potential for real success does not help anyone.
We win or lose by how we choose. Let's support the idea that each child can be supported enough to make those winning choices.
IMAGE.
| 85 |
| Vote |
Comments (5)
Add Comments
Read More
