Or you might be really young and it’s not yet important enough to devote time to teaching you what a sea is over teaching you what 1 sea +1 sea is.
I can see where, in the cases of lower grades and example problems, it might be easier to just use a different word for the sake land locked kids. I had no idea what tundra was until 4th or 5th grade, growing up near those Large Bodies of Water. If a word problem hinged on knowing it in grade 2, I’d have missed out on part of the lesson was, because of the incidental word.
more like an indictment of the level of teaching in that district. I grew up in the land-locked South, but I knew about deserts seas and tundras because we were taught about such things. We read books; we looked at maps. If students are to be guided away from learning unfamilar words and concepts, then what is the point of education?
I just can’t help but wonder what kind of kind of question in a text book would be centered around knowing how big a certain body of water is that isn’t somehow related to learning about how big those bodies of water are.
I heard Diane Ravitch being interviewed yesterday and that half-hour interview is now on the 'Net. The 500 words compiled in the book doesn’t apply to just one publisher, it’s a compilation of the bias guidelines for many test and textbook publishers in the country. What’s banned by one pubisher is not necessarily banned by all the others.
Go listen to the link and you’ll hear the reasoning used by the publishers for banning words such as “snow”, “sea”, “owl”, etc.
I’m so eager to read the book that I put a Hold on it at the Fairfax County library, but there are 23 people ahead of me in the queue. I’d like to read it beofre I express an opinion of its contents.
At what age were you taught these things, though? It could so easily be a matter of curriculum.
This addition word problem on page 45 is about the sea, but we don’t do the Sea until spring. Do we drop the lesson on addition to go off on a tangeant and teach kids about the sea, or just rephrase it so we can teach them about addition now and do the lesson on the Sea when the time comes around in the curriculum? I can’t imagine imparting anything to kids in the lowest grades if the material wasn’t geared to their level and I was expected to start a new lesson every time we hit upon an unfamiliar term. The content of what’s actually being taught should be a little more important than the examples used to teach it.
There’s a good reason why we teach kindergarten kids that 2 apples plus 3 apples is 5 apples to help them learn to add, not that 2 carbon nanotubes plus 3 carbon nanotubes is 5 carbon nanotubes.
I didn’t learn what carbon nanotubes were until I was 18. Is that my grade 2 teacher’s fault?
I have serious doubts the “sea” was removed because it offended anyone. It seems alot more likey that it was unimportant to the lesson and may have detracted from what -was- being taught. I’m no fan of censorship, but I think Ravitch was probably stretching more than a little for that example.
Let me guess: you haven’t heard her side of the story, have you? It’s not that “sea” would offend anyone, it’s that at least one publisher is afraid to use it on a test for fear of just one student not knowing what a sea is. Don’t laugh, the Boston area had a similar problem with “snow” last month.
I’ll have to get the book to decide what I think about Ravitch’s list, but the Boston situation seems like one that could be easily stretched into “publishers don’t use the word “snow” for fear that one student won’t know what snow is”, when in actuality, the problem was that students were asked to write an essay about a snow day off from school that they remember, while some districts hadn’t had a snow day since the fourth graders taking the test were in kindergarten.
Umm, if a kid is old enough to be in public school and they don’t know what “sea” and “snow” is, maybe they OUGHT to be flunking a few tests. 'Cause I bet their classmates do. Isn’t this what tests are for in the early years? To let the teachers know who needs extra help and who doesn’t?
I just got done listening to the Harris interview with Diane Ravitch.
One example she mentions: a school in Boston nixing a question that asked, “What would you do for fun on a snowy day?” (my paraphrase).
I am friends with a family of immigrants from south Thailand. When they moved here (Baltimore) two years ago, their daughter (then six years old) had never seen snow. She anxiously awaited the first snowfall, asking me what snow was like, if I had ever built a snowman, etc. There would have been no harm done in asking her to answer the aforementioned test question – she would have done so eagerly. Anyone asserting otherwise is out of touch.
However, if her teacher had wanted to assess her reading, writing and comprehension skills (the reason, correct me if I’m wrong, for giving such tests to grade-school kids) with that of Baltimore kids who’ve seen snow every year, her answer would have made her appear dumber than she is.
I might agree that the authorities nixing the question are guilty of excessive zeal in making up fair test questions (although I can think of a few of my teachers over the years who could’ve used a little more of that quality).
But that’s a far cry from the liberal political agenda and/or woeful education standards hinted at darkly by Ravitch, and by others in this thread.
You should probably read Ms. Ravitch’s book, (or at least listen to the Fresh Air interview, linked above), before you make any more wildly inaccurate claims. Ms. Ravitch has made no claims regarding “woeful education standards” and has not made any claim that the “liberal political agenda” is exclusively at fault for the problems she perceives. She is quite open regarding the negative affect that outside, self-appointed censors on both the left and the right have had on published textbooks and tests.
She began her investigation when she was invited to be on a panel that was vetting a new publication. The members of the panel had been given guidelines for selection. When they had made their recommendations, the publisher came back to the panel and insisted that several selections were “inappropriate.” Since the selections had all been rigorously debated before being sent up to the publisher, she was astounded at the rejection. At that point she began her investigation, turning up egregious complaints from both the Left and the Right regarding the most innocuous details. Her book asserts not that we are shifting the language of schools to the Left or Right, but that we are dumbing down educational opportunities based on absurd conditions from both the Left and Right.
Oh, for goodness’ sake. I can tell you from experience that the only difference I’ve seen between a history book from ten years ago and one from today is that the latter is much less biased. For example, the authors of the old history book (called Liberty, Equality, Power) had an inexplicable dislike of Alexander Hamilton which was painfully obvious. This textbook censorship has not pervaded my school’s textbooks, anyway.
