In my continuing posting on Alfie Kohn’s The Homework Myth, I want to explore one more reason Kohn gives for why homework is bad. He of course explores a variety of more reasons, but these are the ones that stood out to me. I plan to also post a summary of his suggestions for how to improve homework if it must be given.
Kohn argues that for teachers to rely on homework to teach students widens the gap between the haves and the have nots. Disadvantaged students don’t have the same resources and home aid as middle class students. In many cases parents are expected to check over the student’s homework and are often sent notes home if they fail to catch a mistake. This had led many parents to have to spend much of their evenings relearning things in exactly the system their child’s teacher (that year) wants them to do things. Since it is up to them to make sure that the homework is correct, many parents have opted to give their kids a life and do their homework for them. While this of course doesn’t lead to any real learning on the child’s part, it does guarantee them the reward of a good grade. Since good grades are often valued over learning, this system isn’t often challenged.
But what about the students who don’t have educated parents with lots of free time at home? Who don’t have a way to get to the library or access to the internet? Who don’t have the extra cash to make the diorama that will meet expectations? And so forth. Kohn insists that if teachers are set on still assigning that sort of homework, they must assure that all students are provided with equal resources to complete those assignments. The school or community must provide before and afterschool learning/resource centers where the students have access to the same equipment and help that less disadvantaged students have.
Providing equal resources will not solve all the issues or eliminate equality, but it can help prevent the gap from widening any further. But it will take examining expectations, creative planning, and more caring allocation of money in order to provide equal opportunity learning. Basically it will take hard work. Are teachers, administrators, and tax payers willing to help prevent continuing economic (and hence usually racial) inequality or do they just want to maintain the status quo (discriminatory system) because it requires less work?
Now there is the Legacy of the Force which so far as been really annoying and disappointing. Apparently all that philosophical soul searching by Jacen was pointless because the universe is really just black and white and by questioning anything he set himself on the path to becoming a Sith Lord. (okay, yes. I’m only partway through the second book so there are 7 more books to come, but its not looking good). Not only does the once pacifist start killing at whim, he chooses to be trained by the Sith, and sets himself up as leader of the secret police in a not so subtle allusion to the Nazis and the Patriot Act. It falls into the oh so annoying false perception that is often brought up as a charge against emergents – that if you think deeply and question anything you will go off the deep end. So – seriously bad character and plot development there.
Although it makes use of a lot of the traditional symbols associated with Mary, it challenges tradition as well. Of course in expected fashion it was rejected by critics of Rosetti’s day because it was new and different. Contemporary critics howled with outrage at the picture, denouncing it as ‘an example of the perversion of talent which has recently been making so much headway’. I liked it because it depicts a Mary who has emotions – who reacts in some way to the appearance of the angel and his startling request. Here she is scared to death, cowering in the corner, unsure of her fate. Rossetti (using his sister Christine Rossetti as a model) portrays a real person here and I like that.