Rachel Oberstadt’s letters to the editor are always fascinating,
giving as they do a glimpse into the halls of academe from the
point of view of an involved elementary school parent.
Rachel Oberstadt’s letters to the editor are always fascinating, giving as they do a glimpse into the halls of academe from the point of view of an involved elementary school parent. Her most recent, printed on New Year’s Eve, asserts that the standardized test for second graders will assess whether they know their times tables to 10 and whether they know what syllogisms and aphorisms are.
I certainly hope she is mistaken. Second graders should be working on counting, adding, and subtracting. Times tables can be introduced in third grade and should be mastered by fifth. Unfortunately, I have tutored Gilroy High School 10th graders who did not reliably know their times tables. They may be fine on 2 x 5, but go all to pieces on such delicate operations as 6 x 7.
After reading Mrs. Oberstadt’s letter, I asked the editorial board of The Dispatch whether anyone knew, off the top of his or her head, what an aphorism was. None of us did, although we are all relatively erudite college graduates who write professionally or semi-professionally.
Not until our editor fetched a dictionary and read us the definition were we certain we could identify and create an aphorism: a short concise statement of a principle. Example: Second graders are too young to learn what an aphorism is.
As for syllogisms, if there is any merit at all to cognitive development theory, then it is sheer folly to try to teach syllogisms to anyone much under the age of 12. A second grader may be leaving Piaget’s pre-operational stage and embarking on the concrete operations stage, but no way is he ready for formal operations such as the study of logic.
Mrs. Oberstadt goes on to complain that the standardized test will not assess how well a child can draw, use his imagination, or solve problems. At this point, I begin to disagree with her.
Not that I think drawing, imagination, and problem solving are unimportant; far from it. Proof positive: my middle son is pursuing a major in art and design, and I am paying his tuition.
But for one thing, it would take a very sophisticated test to ascertain how well a 7-year-old draws or uses his imagination. Problem solving is easier to test, but the easiest problem solving skills to test on a paper test are mathematical problem solving skills. The other facets of problem solving are harder to test, and harder to teach in a classroom.
Let’s face it: a classroom is a limited environment. It is impossible to bring the whole world into it. A teacher is only a human being. She ˆusually she ˆ is responsible for 24 little children or 30-plus slightly older ones. If she does manage to teach them to read, write, and cipher at grade level, I will rain blessings down on her head.
But I do not think the schools can do everything. In my darker moments, which are frequent, I doubt they can do anything. Given the track record of California public schools in general, and Gilroy Unified School District in particular, in graduating 18-year-olds who are proficient in trigonometry and essay writing, I am not about to expect the schools to teach drawing or music or morals.
Fortunately, the school day is only six and a half hours long. After kids go home, parents can teach them the essentials of life: how to draw and climb trees and figure out how the world works and keep their promises.
It is our privilege as parents to take them to the park and to the beach and up a forested trail, to show them the constellations, to plant beans with them and read aloud to them, to foster that imagination and admire those drawings, to run alongside the bicycle until they master the trick of balance.
Then we get to watch them ride off, just down the block when they are 7, but someday it will be off to college or that first job or marriage. We wave … they are too focused to look back.
To be sure, we will have to turn off the TV and throw away the Xbox to accomplish those things.
