|
It’s not something I’m proud of, but
I wasn’t exactly an academic titan in high school. Foreign languages and
mathematics in particular – pretty much the same thing as far as I was concerned
– were nigh impossible. And though extensive reading gave me an intuitive grasp
of grammar and structure, I never could identify the parts of speech. To this
day I can’t tell an adverb from an adenoid.
When life persuaded me that a college education
might be worth the bother after all, I did not find the prospect of remedial
math particularly troublesome beyond annoyance that I hadn’t paid better
attention in high school. But a funny thing happened: I liked it. I took
more. Now that I didn’t have to, I wanted to.
Thus it was that the bookworm math zero became a
certified public accountant. And as much as I came to appreciate all who helped
along the way, those who did me the greatest favor were the teachers in high
school who declined to humor me when I failed to do the work.
You couldn’t have convinced me of
that at the time. A lot of kids today are about the same, including one of
mine. What’s different is that at least a few of their schools agree.
Furthering the Bart Simpson-ization
of public education in some schools, the Los Angeles Unified School District
voted this month to scrap a plan to end social promotion, the practice of
advancing students based on age rather than academic readiness. The reason? A
staggering 350,000 of the district’s 711,000 students would be held back next
year if the practice were dropped. A grim prospect, but not as harsh as what
awaits these pseudo-graduates after high school.
At about the same time, The New York
Times reported that public school students there were helped to cheat on tests
due to pressure to raise school averages. The scam involved at least 52
district employees over a period of 5 years. One school saw the number of
third-graders reading at grade level jump 22 percent in a single year, a
phenomenon that turned out to be less about miracles than monkey business.
Lest we up here in God’s country get too smug, social promotion and overt
cheating aren’t the only the only ways to jimmy the system. Witness the
Academic Senate at California State University, Chico, which recently voted
against requiring a grade of C or better in four mandatory core courses. The
present policy requires only a D in oral communications and critical thinking
and a C-minus in basic mathematics and English composition, though the senate
did at least raise the bar for oral communications and critical thinking to a
C-minus.
The reported arguments against the C
standard are instructive. A vice provost expressed concern that requiring Cs
would impose a hardship on some students, while a professor warned that as many
as 300 per semester would have to retake the classes. The professor went on to
say that students not achieving a C in one of the courses might struggle in the
others and have to stay an extra semester.
Translation: Even an achievement as
modest as a C can be blasted inconvenient for both the student and the college.
The purpose of these courses, therefore, is to endure them and keep the staff
employed, but not too employed.
A part-time faculty member worried
that requiring Cs would create grade inflation without improving performance.
Translation: He thinks the instructors would cheat, ala New York City.
A student member of the senate
opposed the proposal because requiring a C grade “isn’t fair.” This is
difficult to translate, as the sound of white noise ricocheting inside a skull
cannot be replicated in the newspaper.
The most telling comes from the
part-time faculty member who frets that instructors failing to bestow higher
grades would be the target of complaints. Translation: He and a few of his
colleagues are confused about whether their job is to educate students or to
make them happy.
And if the Academic Senate at CSUC
still has any residual goal of educating anyone, let me offer one last piece of
advice: Grow a spine.
© 1997 – 2002 Brent Morrison
|
