When talking and discussing in class today, I couldn't help but think about my academic career and what I would have done differently if GPA rewards weren't a factor. I really enjoy four level classes because I learn more about why and how things happen rather than busy work with readings and worksheets that re-copy what you just read. This would affect my decision if weighted GPA weren't a factor, but I can't say I wouldn't have an inclination to drop down a level for an easier work load because really, underneath it all, i would ask myself, "what's the point?" If my friends are going to get A's while I get B's while doing harder work and I'll have nothing to show for it, why would I bother? In the end, however, I don't think that I would change my leveling if the GPA system changed because I love history, english and french but I struggle with physics and math. My leveling is based off of interest and my ability to succeed, and I enjoy my four level classes for the extended learning and more independent regime. In math and physics, I need more help and thus an independent approach wouldn't fare too well for me. I take my four level classes because the discussion, essays and everyday work are more developed and I can form my own opinions about things and how and why they came to be. Because of this, though I enjoy being rewarded for taking the class, my course selection wouldn't change if that were to alter. I do believe the message New Trier sends kids is that if you take a higher class, you will be rewarded, and that kids motivation is through what they can get in return for their hard work. But every kid is different, and yes, if the rules were to change kids would slack, but the same amount of kids would take the class they think they'll get the most out of. Class rank was done away with, which in my opinion was a good choice because there is so much competition at our school and so many bright kids, that that should not be the center of education.
I researched the topic of just having no grades at all in a school and how that would affect kids, and I came across an article about a school named Clearwater that has no grades, no assignments, and really no responsibilities. Kids learn what they want and choose how to spend their time. There are 63 kids who attend the school, or what they call a "democratic institution", and if kids want to play video games instead of reading about the Ming Dynasty, then so be it. There were many criticisms about this method of learning, and I personally agree with one critic who says that though standardized tests and rigorous testing of knowledge is not quite the right route to take, kids cannot be simply left alone with no guidance as to what they "need to know." But what exactly is it that a student "needs to know?" Sure, there are curriculum descriptions of what kids "should" know, but wheres the line drawn that says just how necessary each course or unit is? I don't really know, but I do know that our society is heavily based on competition and pressure to be better and that definitely detracts from the learning itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment