In a comment on my previous post, Long Division, my friend Wendy brought up some good points that I would like to talk about. This is mostly intended to be a response to Wendy, but since it’s a bit too long for the comments section (and since I'd also like to post a letter my sister recently received from the school district I mentioned) I’m posting it here-- so if it interests you, please read on! However I do suggest you first get the context by reading my original post, Wendy’s comment in response to it, and the facts behind the lesson plan controversy (including PDF’s of the lesson plans in their entirety) at factcheck.org.
And if you're sick to death of my political banter, instead of clicking "read more," click here to watch a cute video that will make your day ;)
And if you're sick to death of my political banter, instead of clicking "read more," click here to watch a cute video that will make your day ;)
When I wrote Long Division, I was well aware of the nature of the concerns that were raised against the “back to school” speech’s accompanying lesson plan - I actually read both lesson plans (the one for younger children and the one for teens) and investigated the truth behind the wording in the original plans to see what was changed and what wasn’t. However, I intentionally remained vague about the minutiae for a very specific reason: my beef has little to do with whether or not the concerns raised were valid. It is about the way the opponents reacted and the outcome that resulted from that reaction. However, Wendy helped me see that I may need to specifically address the concerns that were raised in order to fully convey my point, and so that others don’t assume I'm encouraging us all to do our homework without having done my own ;)
First off, regardless of whether or not you agree with the concerns about some of the wording in the lesson plans, I would like to point out that the fact that the U.S. Department of Education even drafted lesson plans of this sort to accompany the speech should be applauded- the pairing of an experience of this nature with the type of follow up activities suggested in the lesson plans is entirely in line with what research has shown to be the best cognitive practices in learning (studies on the long-term retention that results from pairing lecture with discussion vs. lecture alone date all the way back to 1925). In short, the DOE was attempting to provide the schools with a powerful and motivating teaching opportunity for our kids.
First off, regardless of whether or not you agree with the concerns about some of the wording in the lesson plans, I would like to point out that the fact that the U.S. Department of Education even drafted lesson plans of this sort to accompany the speech should be applauded- the pairing of an experience of this nature with the type of follow up activities suggested in the lesson plans is entirely in line with what research has shown to be the best cognitive practices in learning (studies on the long-term retention that results from pairing lecture with discussion vs. lecture alone date all the way back to 1925). In short, the DOE was attempting to provide the schools with a powerful and motivating teaching opportunity for our kids.
Now, as to the wording in the lesson plan that Wendy has identified as "little subtleties of control," I would offer a counterpoint that it was, as the Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council put it, "inartfully worded" and as such did not convey the intent of the authors as well as it could have. This was also echoed in what White House Spokesman Tommy Vietor said when addressing the subsequent revisions: “We changed it to clarify the language so the intent is clear."
Would it not then have been better to give our President the benefit of the doubt rather than looking at the lesson plan through “socialist goggles”? Instead of rushing to conclusions and demanding that the entire thing be scrapped and/or banned, would it not have been more civil and reasonable to calmly suggest some revision? To me this was a classic example of what is officially termed "confirmation bias" and is one of the most well-known fallacies of human judgment in the psychological community; when you look at something someone has said, done, or written with preconceptions about the thoughts and intents of the person behind it, you can almost always find what you’re looking for. Anyone who has ever experienced the highs of a teenage crush they thought was reciprocated, only to learn in fact that it was not can understand falling victim to confirmation bias; all the looks, words, and actions to which you attached so much meaning end up coming from entirely different motivations-and sometimes even prove to be meaningless- when you are finally able to see them from a realistic perspective. As much as this type of flawed judgment tends to be a part of human nature, it demonstrates no real concern for the truth, only concern for proving one's own suppositions right.
Lastly, if it’s true that certain districts imposed a ban to send a message that they will not have their curriculum federally mandated, then we should be all the more appalled. The activity with the concerning wording was changed to the more appropriate kind of activity Wendy exampled, and the speech was put online in advance for review. But more importantly, this was always a suggested lesson plan- never a mandate. Therefore, if these districts took such a hard line stance to send a message that they won’t stand for federally mandated curriculum- when no such mandate ever existed- then they either acted impulsively based on misunderstanding, or they acted in blind defiance. And that is exactly what my point is. When did people get so caught up in WHO is right, that they abandoned all concern for WHAT is right?
By revising the wording and posting the speech in advance, the President showed himself to be willing to listen and respond to concerned citizens, and that his main goal was to reach out and help our kids. The accompanying curriculum was not mandated, but provided as a useful aid and each district was free to make its own decisions about what and how to teach it (if even taught at all). Conversely, these "concerned" citizens have proven themselves to be more concerned with picking and winning a fight than with seeking to reach a common ground in the interest of challenging and inspiring the youth of our nation or with teaching them by example how to effectively work together to solve problems despite differences. Honestly, it smacks of a bad marriage in which the spouses are so caught up in trying to hurt each other they fail to protect their children from the crossfire.
I maintain that we should all be displeased with what occurred. Not because it was broached, but because of the way it was handled. And I maintain that narrow-minded presupposition was the driving force behind such a vitriolic crusade. I have no problem with schools offering a provision for opting-out of this sort of thing, but I hope I’ve communicated why I believe those that prevented it from being shown entirely did our children and our nation a great disservice.
*Also, as an update for anyone interested (lest we lose faith that all reason has been abandoned by these injudicious districts), a few days ago my sister received the following letter from the school district:
Kudos to the many citizens I am sure made their disapproval known to the district and managed to get a better message sent to their children!
0 comments:
Post a Comment