How Did We Get Here? Sadly, strategies already in place in all public schools will obfuscate the complications inherent in S537. Unfortunately this bill only appears simple. It is really simple-minded, but it has complex consequences. It could be easily passed by those who have no idea what actually happens in schools. Legislators are instructed by those who apparently seek chaos, to placate those who have concerns about what those controlling public education are really up to, by helping them think this is an answer to a problem already carefully crafted.
Does anyone still actually believe that adding to statutory law is going to fix anything, especially in education? Those who have directed the trajectory of public education for centuries now have developed a host of strategies to break down meaningful standards, merit-based grading, addressing the real diversity of individual students in every classroom, normal and healthy human development, and a focus on true academic standards, to name just a few lost merits of early education (not that there are any meaningful merits in today’s lock-step, group education practices). Given techniques embedded in schools today, this law will easily be circumvented, impossible to consistently enforce, and require enormous amounts of time, money, personnel, and conflict to monitor. Grade inflation is rampant and not about to be ignored in order to meet any pressure from outside the system.
It is important to recognize the close parallels between the disintegration of sound instruction and good assessment. Both of these are critical for determining “performance” and appropriate “standards” as we continue with this failed public education experiment. Below are some examples of how this has occurred.
Since 2006 when the assessment of basic skills was effectively outlawed in South Carolina (a result of the repeal of Title 59 Chapter 30 Basic Skill Assessment Program), there has been an open pathway for deliberate elimination of assessing “performance” based on measurable academic achievement. New “education” strategies have been implemented including social-emotional learning, filling classes with very diverse “learners” creating wildly heterogeneous classrooms, and drastically dumbing-down instruction and assessments to enable more students to appear to “succeed.” These are just a few strategies implemented to obscure lack of learning—with lots of mind control and nurturing compliance. All this will not be stopped by a silly bill like S537, even if it becomes a law.
Schools have developed very clever strategies to disguise the inability of many children to reach set standards. For example, starting in earnest as early as the 1950s, “projects” have become important as assessment tools, especially in science and social studies. Projects result in selective learning as students often spend a lot of time with “arts and crafts” on a specific creation, leaving little time to get a more comprehensive, intellectually challenging, and broad and enlightened understanding of much of anything. This also allows for more subjective grading and interpretation of results. A plethora of grading paradigms and templates have beendeveloped to pretend such activities can be consistently or meaningfully assessed (especially with the possibility of “outside” help, like from today’s parents).
Group and team learning activities also allow for students with less ability to benefit from the work and intelligence of brighter peers. Very often the outcomes, such as projects, reports, presentations, investigations, etc. of the group, are assessed by paradigms that award one grade for the “team.” Generally everyone knows who does the real work and actually learns something. The goal: Make sure all students come out “equal” and with “equitable” grades.
The substance of instruction has been seriously eroded so that “learning” is easier. For example, “social studies” has largely replaced dedicated history, civics, geography, and other related specific subjects. Long-term learning of historical knowledge in context has been cast aside by eliminating memorizing dates, facts, and other details that build actual knowledge and understanding. Instead “social studies” is taught, incorporating the much more entertaining “story” approach. This approach also enhances opportunities for revising history, inculcating more “desirable” social, cultural and other indoctrination to support the New World Order.
Actual tests and assessments have been altered from earlier days. For example, multiple choice has largely replaced fill-in-the blanks. Knowing and remembering details is largely ignored as “concepts” and other amorphous ideas replace the challenges of actually building a sound and detailed knowledge base upon which to develop higher order thinking. This would also help build real critical thinking skills, which are successfully circumvented in public schools to prevent undesirable questioning of what is happening in today’s world.
Widely implemented for decades in higher education, a practice called “grading on the curve” has seeped down the education levels. This grading system allows teachers to compare students’ achievement in classrooms against each other and base grades on that comparison. In some cases, there is no grading level of failure, just differences in student “performance” related to the subject(s) at hand.
In addition, schools have adapted to parental pressure, dumbing down expectations by allowing relative and subjective assessments to help make sure no students have to experience “failure” with its attendant trauma, be accountable for meeting expectations beyond their ability, or receive honest feedback about their real aptitudes, abilities, or strengths and weaknesses.
Age-appropriate learning has been largely discarded. The importance, particularly in early learning, of memorization has been replaced by the age-inappropriate idea of presenting concepts without a sound foundation, such as was imposed in the disaster of Common Core arithmetic. In addition, many people seem to believe that, if something is going to be “age-appropriate” at some specific time, then perhaps it is best to prepare for being “ready” for that “age-appropriate” concept, such as learning to read or understanding human development (as in sex education). Thus, preparatory information is introduced at earlier ages—where it is not “age-appropriate.” Natural development is being subverted, confusing and distorting the“performance” of students, who are trying to learn when what is presented is not “age-appropriate.” The problems created are enormous.
For many reasons, today’s educators mostly appear to believe learning should be fun and entertaining. Well, things that are fun and entertaining rarely require much work or effort. This subtle, yet appealing, approach to education has helped make a farce out of public education. The damage that is continuing to be done to the development of each child’s character, any hope of a work ethic, and his or her unique place in society is immeasurable. S537 certainly won’t do much about this reality.
Across the board we see how students are passed from grade to grade, trapped in an arbitrary lock-step progression with few or no alternative options for those with more or less than “typical” ability. S537 will just be another interruptor in a system that is already characterized by chaos.
It is important to mention that the inclusion of almost all special education students in classrooms has resulted in an almost impossible dilemma for teachers and students alike. Placing diverse learners in one classroom frequently requires multiple adults, differentiated lessons, specialized adaptive or manipulative equipment for hands-on learning (or keeping the student entertained at some level to avoid becoming a noisy distraction), and a host of other interferences that impact actual learning for all students in the classroom. When initiated, “inclusion” was seriously challenged by some, but the “benefits” seen by those who have another agenda have pushed this destructive initiative to the point of idiocy. The noble intent is creating a very destructive impact on many children, and their families, and is sabotaging their futures. Unless or until every child has chip in his or her brain, “inclusion” will require a lot of “new” determinations of “performance” based on new “insights” into assessing “performance.” S537 is an impediment to real solutions, which are not going to come from the education establishment.
In conclusion, despite the devastation wrought by compulsory attendance laws, first passed in Massachusetts in 1951 and subsequently in place in all states, most people continue to be elated knowing that all children will (supposedly) be educated at someone else’s expense. Taxes (our money) are legally levied in all states for this beneficent blessing. Unfortunately it is becoming clearer all the time that public schools are neither beneficial or a blessing. While solutions are daunting to conceive and achieve, stopping S537 is a small step toward trying to prevent the government from causing further damage.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not constitute legal or professional advice. ConservaTruth assumes no liability for any actions taken based on this content. Read more.
Subscribe to ConservaTruth's Email Newsletter for curated insights on South Carolina's legislative activities and conservative viewpoints, delivered straight to your inbox! With vetted and easy-to-understand information, our newsletter empowers you to become an informed and engaged citizen, actively participating in safeguarding our cherished Constitutional values. Don’t miss out on crucial updates—join our community of informed conservatives today!
Comments