|
Edited on Sat Apr-08-06 09:06 PM by RoyGBiv
This is not going to be a vast polemic on the state of American society, nor will it be a laundry list of detail. I am skipping past the grand issues, not detailing the specifics. I am simply offering an anecdote that says more than it may seem to say on the surface. I heard this story from my daughter this morning and confirmed some details through her mother who already knew of it this afternoon.
My daughter is a sophomore in high school, but she's been in accelerated classes and has taken heavier-than-normal loads since the 6th grade. This has resulted in, among other things, her taking what the school refers to as "Senior History" this year. The administration was reluctant to allow this because the students are required to take a test at the end of the year as a part of the no-child-left-behind nonsense that will partly determine the funds the school will get next year. Higher scores means more money, and while my daughter's intelligence and willingness to work hard is well-known, old prejudices die hard. Younger students aren't supposed to be able to handle the subject matter. It's too advanced with too much nuance, and the test she has to take, supposedly, reflects that. With my daughter's assurances that she would work very hard and do her best, not to mention a little prodding directed at the administration from her mother, a college math professor, and a letter from myself, detailing my relationship with the world of history academia, my daughter was allowed to take the class.
I have not been surprised to learn that she hates it. The subject matter is so fundamental it's insulting to her senses, and she's learned far more from me talking about history and politics and government at every given opportunity. But, she has maintained and is making good grades, and her teacher is confident that she will do well on the test, but not overly confident of her class in general.
In the past few weeks, the teacher has begun preparing the students for the test by giving them practice tests, sometimes written, other times verbally by making it a game they play in class. My daughter has enjoyed this to an extent because she gets to recall her knowledge and put it to some use. In fact she was able to put her knowledge of both history and literature to the test recently in such a way that the retelling of the event fills me with abject horror and something akin to outrage.
During one of the game sessions, the teacher asked a question:
Which one of the following is not known as an industrialist or Robber Baron.
A) Cornelius Vanderbilt B) Andrew Carnegie C) Upton Sinclair D) J. P. Morgan
Answer, according to the teacher, Cornelius Vanderbilt.
If you don't, at least generally, understand how absurd this is, you need read no further at this point. Get thee to Google at once, or better yet, a few good books on the subject.
Well, my daughter knew it was absurd, in no small part because she pays attention, but also because she had recently read _The Jungle_ at my suggestion of a socially important book to use for a book report. So, she objected, and the teacher replied that the answer key is not wrong.
It gets better.
When my daughter wouldn't back down, and when she was at this point assisted by a fellow student who also had paid attention, the teacher proceeded to tell the two girls in response to their declaration that Sinclair was an author who wrote a scathing assault on the meat-packing industry, "That makes him an industrialist. Novelists are industrialists because they make more money that their positive contribution to society justifies." My daughter said her jaw nearly fell through the floor, and when she picked it up, she objected one more time, along with now three other members of the class who had been in her English class when she presented her report. They asked the teacher to ask the English teacher about it.
At this point, having lost control of the situation, the teacher forcibly ended the matter.
Apparently the teacher was eventually corrected, probably by the English teacher, but she told the class only that the matter wasn't clear. According to the answer key, the non-industrialist was none other than Vanderbilt, whom the teacher said could not be a Robber Baron because he gave so much money to charities. Is it a typo on the test? Most likely. Is it absolutely absurd that the teacher, a history teacher, didn't catch it? Absolutely. This is not a vague detail of history.
The preceding is not a story about my daughter or the few classmates she had who supported her. It is about the rest of the class who would have regurgitated this incorrect information the rest of the their lives in one way or another, most importantly by not having the slightest clue what a so-called Robber Baron is or why the term is not a compliment. It is about a teacher so ignorant she didn't see the error even after it was pointed out and resisted efforts to correct her ignorance. It is about a bureaucracy so corrupt that intelligence and actual learning are punished or ridiculed rather than rewarded. It is about a system of education so fundamentally broken that this type of testing is what's called "accountability." There are many layers here that I will leave to your imagination if you managed to make it this far. I wrote this much as a sort of self-therapy to calm myself down, but it's not really working. I am utterly disgusted at the entire incident, and I am convinced that this and things like this are, to a large degree, what is wrong with America.
|