The cancer that has infected nearly every institution in our country, whether it's local, state or federal, it's still the same agenda and ideology for fundamental transformation of society, progressive socialist liberalism is alive and well.
And to turn the country back to common sense, and a logical agenda with workable rational outcomes seems distant at best, or no chance at all given the current attitude of so many among us that believes the fight to save the country as founded is just too difficult and time consuming, so the prevailing strategy is 'to get along, go along'.
I wonder what has to happen before we, as a nation, come to grips with the reality that there a considerable effort in our country that believes the nation is headed in the wrong direction, and must be educated in the 'new wave' mentality of 'what's best for me is what's best for the collective'. Common Core?
As this article points out, the one size fits all in education is not a workable solution that identifies and solves the deficiencies among student achievements that have become rampant in public schools. Past history of failed Washington attempts for solutions to providing workable solutions to failed schools has not effected the mentality of those that have a different agenda for students. To build productive individuals that will enter and benefit the larger society is not part of the socialist agenda. The ideology and agenda is about their ultimate goal, controlling outcomes.
Progressive socialist liberalism is the antithesis of personal freedom and the liberty of chose one's own destiny. Remember the frog swimming around in the pot of water, having a great time saying all's well, that is, until the heat is applied to the water and the frog suddenly understands, too late, that he has made a huge mistake.
Differentiated Instruction is Still Politically Correct
By John Merrifield - March 31, 2916
The latest attempt to make federal intervention productive — the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) — promotes an “instructional strategy that supporters think has enormous potential for reaching learners with diverse needs.” “Universal design for learning” (UDL) is the name of that strategy.
UDL’s supporters believe that lessons can be constructed so that one size will fit all; something that the political process is driven to attempt. To do otherwise, would violate the “appearance of fairness” political imperative; that nearly anything provided through taxation must be available to everyone.
UDL amounts to another “differentiated instruction” approach.
UDL proposes that differentiated instruction occur through a package of very diverse ways to present lesson content. The UDL something-for-everyone way for one size to fit all, “might include audiovisual components, illustrations, traditional lectures, enlarged print, or glossaries.” Hey, use a shotgun, and at least one of the pellets will hit the target. Is there time in the school day to present every important concept multiple ways? And UDL seems to assume that the only significant differences in how children engage in academics is pedagogical, and within the pedagogical realm that pace is not in issue.
UDL assumes that consequential differences in how lessons should be presented do not include subject theme. Is UDL another more-of-the-same-harder, heroic assumption aimed at making the current arrangements — existing school systems — yield the academic gains that ESSA’s predecessors (No Child Left Behind, Goals 2000) failed to realize from their own, similar heroic assumptions? I think so.
We should not wait for time to tell. Since ESSA, like its predecessors, does not address the roots of the persistent low performance problem, more disappointment is likely. ESSA, like its predecessors, probably has some useful provisions, and a very low upside. A new central plan is not an answer.
And to turn the country back to common sense, and a logical agenda with workable rational outcomes seems distant at best, or no chance at all given the current attitude of so many among us that believes the fight to save the country as founded is just too difficult and time consuming, so the prevailing strategy is 'to get along, go along'.
I wonder what has to happen before we, as a nation, come to grips with the reality that there a considerable effort in our country that believes the nation is headed in the wrong direction, and must be educated in the 'new wave' mentality of 'what's best for me is what's best for the collective'. Common Core?
As this article points out, the one size fits all in education is not a workable solution that identifies and solves the deficiencies among student achievements that have become rampant in public schools. Past history of failed Washington attempts for solutions to providing workable solutions to failed schools has not effected the mentality of those that have a different agenda for students. To build productive individuals that will enter and benefit the larger society is not part of the socialist agenda. The ideology and agenda is about their ultimate goal, controlling outcomes.
Progressive socialist liberalism is the antithesis of personal freedom and the liberty of chose one's own destiny. Remember the frog swimming around in the pot of water, having a great time saying all's well, that is, until the heat is applied to the water and the frog suddenly understands, too late, that he has made a huge mistake.
Differentiated Instruction is Still Politically Correct
By John Merrifield - March 31, 2916
The latest attempt to make federal intervention productive — the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) — promotes an “instructional strategy that supporters think has enormous potential for reaching learners with diverse needs.” “Universal design for learning” (UDL) is the name of that strategy.
UDL’s supporters believe that lessons can be constructed so that one size will fit all; something that the political process is driven to attempt. To do otherwise, would violate the “appearance of fairness” political imperative; that nearly anything provided through taxation must be available to everyone.
UDL amounts to another “differentiated instruction” approach.
UDL proposes that differentiated instruction occur through a package of very diverse ways to present lesson content. The UDL something-for-everyone way for one size to fit all, “might include audiovisual components, illustrations, traditional lectures, enlarged print, or glossaries.” Hey, use a shotgun, and at least one of the pellets will hit the target. Is there time in the school day to present every important concept multiple ways? And UDL seems to assume that the only significant differences in how children engage in academics is pedagogical, and within the pedagogical realm that pace is not in issue.
UDL assumes that consequential differences in how lessons should be presented do not include subject theme. Is UDL another more-of-the-same-harder, heroic assumption aimed at making the current arrangements — existing school systems — yield the academic gains that ESSA’s predecessors (No Child Left Behind, Goals 2000) failed to realize from their own, similar heroic assumptions? I think so.
We should not wait for time to tell. Since ESSA, like its predecessors, does not address the roots of the persistent low performance problem, more disappointment is likely. ESSA, like its predecessors, probably has some useful provisions, and a very low upside. A new central plan is not an answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment