Dear Editor:
At the time of writing, the debate continues, “Do we re-open schools in June, and for what purpose?”
You better believe we should – the question remains, “Is the government willing to do what needs to be done?”
We have been through two years of total chaos in the education of our children. It began with the work-to-rule campaigns and the withdrawal of services by teachers in the fall of 2019. Since the spring of 2020, well, we don’t have to re-hash that ongoing disaster! Remote learning hasn’t measured up to what it was designed to accomplish. Parents have had additional responsibilities dealing with managing the family home under very adverse conditions, and trying to take on additional duties normally attributed to the teaching profession.
We now have a window to get the train put back on the right track. Let’s use the first half of June to first highlight fundamental learning skills absolutely paramount for the next grade. Use the remainder of the time to assess via standardized tests (which already exist) to determine the correct placement of each child for September. Yes, our traditional grade system will need to adapt to more like the university-style where any one child may be in differing educational levels at the same time. Perhaps we need to semester the school year, so that instead of repeating an entire year, a further option be to divide the school year into shorter semesters.
Suggestions where students have to repeat the entire year because of COVID, simply are not fair to students who have been following the protocol of home study. They deserve the right to prove just what they have done.
Criteria for advancement, I suppose is the old 60 per cent standard, (although let’s hope that our car mechanic gets our brakes done correctly more than 60% of the time, or our family doctor gets his diagnosis right more than the same number.)
Of course we can’t penalize any student who is struggling or who has not been able to adapt to online learning too harshly. Nor can we insist that child deal automatically with curriculum two years past his/her current level of ability. For that reason, we cannot embarrass any individual by placing him/her more than, for example, one year out of chronological age.
Let’s hope that a June re-entry be used wisely in establishing the correct placement for the coming September. Let’s give our children a chance to recoup the necessary skills and knowledge and subsequently prove they have the ability to move forward competently in their education.
Yes, standardized tests are only one tool of assessment, but they are tried and true. Proving our ability in later life is a fact be it in professions, business and industry. Without being too harsh, these are realities in the coming years required from us all.
However, automatic placement into the next grade level is equally unjustified. But that discussion is for another time.
Ron Johnson,
Mount Forest