Cheating, fear of failure are just some of the examples that existing in the graded-oriented environment. Measureable outcomes are necessary but it doesn’t mean that teachers have to turn everything into numbers; in fact grades are the “least significant results of learning”. Although the absence of “assessment-based grading” is a necessary; teachers should consider these following grading techniques: replace numbers and letter with rubrics, prepare students to every test without fortify their knowledge, post grades online only add more destructive effects on learning, students are willing to read your comments about their works and finally
It appears that testing is a waste of time, but in reality, it prepares students for future success. Another question that occurs is: What are students gaining from these different tests each year? Many people debate whether the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is considered to be pointless. Maybe these tests are teaching students accountability and responsibility, two vital tools for success in life. Within in the article, “No Child Left Behind: Test-Obsessed Education Won’t Move Us Ahead” the author, David Marshak, slashes the No Child Left Behind Act.
Gerald Graff points out the pressure that society and school put on students to be academically intelligent. Students must have the perfect grades and attend the highest ranking school. Students also have to go to extreme measures to just get through one class because they know that failing is not a option. As Graff says, “To say that students need to see their interests “through academic eyes” is to say that street smarts are not enough” (p.303). I agree with what Graff says and also agree when he says, “The challenge, as a college professor Ned Laff has put it, “is not simply to exploit students’ nonacademic interests, but to get them to see those interests through academic eyes” (p.302).
Seems kind of pointless, most athletes don't go pro after college, so I why not get the full educational experience? Getting special treatment in school just because you’re an athlete is not fair. College is way to difficult for people to get special treatment just because of a person’s special talent. How about for students who are honor students? All their hard work doesn’t mean anything?
In the article, “Why Johnny Can't Fail”, Jerry Jesness admits he has played a part in the “floating standard”, but he does not agree with it. The floating standard lets students proceed to the next grade level even if they are not fully prepared. Jesness claims the floating standard is easier to give into rather than to set high standards that some students may not meet because having it in place not only keeps students happy, but also keeps the parents content. When Jesness first began teaching he failed students, but learned that giving students the grades they deserved was not the norm. He soon “fell into line” after the principal of the school called a meeting with him and the parents of the students he was failing.
NCLB was established so that students were not held back in a grade and were promoted to the next grade. I think this is a political aspect that is failing our students. If a student is not understanding the material or doesn’t pass the tests showing that they understand and can retain the information, I don’t believe that they should be promoted. I believe that it only hurts the students because they get more behind as they advance through the levels. The ethical issues that regard the high stakes testing is that it could be unfair to some students.
One of the arguments of co-education is the idea that it provides too many distractions for students. Several scholars have argued that these distractions have led to less attention on school work and class participation, due to girls and boys trying to impress each other. Furthermore, it has also been argued that students who are intimidated by the opposite sex may also be affected by low performance and low grades. Many educators believe that single-sex education does not enforce any type of gender-based stereotypes or adolescent subculture. Due to this, single-sex schools have been established to combat these issues.
“Science is right & religion is wrong.” I personally, believe that this statement is not correct. This is because, there are some phenomenons in this world and in this universe that science can’t explain but religion however can- an example of this is would be the Mayan civilization; They predicted many of the natural disasters that came to be and they were far more advanced than us. This clearly proves that science is not always right and religion is not always wrong. Most Muslims would contradict this statement. This is due to the fact that Muslims believe that we (Humanity) are in the progress of learning and that we will come to understand the truth one day.
Before talking about the incompatibility of science and religion, it is necessary to answer questions such as what is science and what is religion? The science is a tool by means of which it is possible to receive true knowledge of the world. How there was a Universe or how life has appeared? Very deep and difficult question. While none of these issues have precise answers, but there is a scientific methodology, which is the best of what people can approach to them.
Education: The process in which an individual gains pointless knowledge for the opportunity to get wealthy. America's education system is awful at properly educating their students. The type of education that is taught in high school is only to prepare you for what you're actually going to learn in college. A lot of the courses being offered at high schools are impractical in our daily lives, such as trigonometry, Hawaiian history and British literature. These courses are useless unless you're going to major in one of those subjects, but most of us aren't.