Here are some websites with background info from which I took my talking (or blogging) points:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297542,00.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-0411280298nov28,1,4893220.story?coll=chi_news_custom_religion_util&ctrack=1&cset=true
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9767809
The first of the three articles listed above talks about some high schools in the state of Oregon adopting curriculum from the Mexican education system in order to aid Spanish speaking students in the language acquisition process. The people who support this move say that it will benefit students because they will improve upon their native language, which will improve their ability to learn English. Through numerous classes I have taken on the subject, I have seen that the improvement of one’s own language does help with learning English, but why do we feel the need to adopt Mexico’s curriculum? It would seem to me that Oregon would want to create their own blended curriculum based on what they know about teaching English to speakers of other languages. I could understand doing research and maybe taking note of some of the things Mexico does and doesn't do, but using Mexico's curriculum when it doesn’t even successfully teach its own children? That doesn’t make sense.
In the Chicago Tribune article, the author talks about children who are taught extremist views in the classroom. Terrorism is supported in textbooks used by schools (like in Pakistan), and they encourage students to become martyrs. The anti-American and anti-Western “rhetoric” is what the children are bombarded with daily. It’s a scary thought that the future leaders of regions such as Pakistan are being totally brainwashed into thinking that we (Westerners) are their enemy. Just imagine the implications stemming from what those children are being taught!
The last article in the list above talks about Middle Eastern history & culture and the Arabic language being taught in New York schools. According to the article, many have said that the inclusion of these things could result in terrorist “breeding grounds.” I once heard on the news that a public school in New York gave children 3 hours during the school day to allow prayer. First of all, how is that separation of church and state? Second, how come in grade school, I only got a “moment of silence” to say a prayer if I wanted to?—and it only lasted 30 seconds IF I was lucky and IF could concentrate in spite of the noise of my classmates??? If you’re going to give 3 hours of praying time—fine—build your own religious school, but to have tax payers pay for that when students should be there to get an education? Uhh.....no.
So, after reading these articles, I ask—what is with education in some places today? I strongly support diversity and acceptance, but advocating terrorism in Pakistani schools, adopting Mexico’s curriculum in Oregon, and praying 3 hours during the school day in a New York public school are all really extreme examples of education gone waaaaay wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It's funny that some bureaucratic institutions will debate making changes ad nauseum, and others, like educational institutions, for example, make changes that don't seem to make any sense to the people who have to use them, i.e. teachers. If they want to make a change, then they should do a trial run first to show that it has a chance of being successful. Does it make sense to tell everyone that it should work because they've made it sound good, but really don't have anything to back up their claims? Do you have any idea how they get away with the changes they make without showing any type of successful programs within their specific school system, since there are obviously differences in situations, such as socio-economic, various cultures predominating, etc.
Isn't it amazing that some bureaucratic institutions can debate changes ad nauseum and others, such as educational systems, can just pop up and change their curriculums without really showing any valid evidence that it has a chance of succeeding? Have you ever heard of them asking the ones who will be using the new system, i.e. teachers, for their opinions? Wouldn't it make more sense to do a trial run, or three, within the school system to see if it works or not, before implementing it throughout the whole school district as "policy" without anything to really show that it can help our kids learn? (Yes, these are all rhetorical questions.) Maybe you can shed some light on this ongoing problem within the educational system.
Post a Comment