[etni] The inherent unfairness of the log.
- From: David Graniewitz <davidzalman@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: etni.list@xxxxxxxxx, etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 16 May 2013 23:36:50 +0300
A few weeks ago, I went to test orally a class of English speakers. The
pupils had done a bridging task in lieu of the project and with several of
them the conversation got around to discussing what they thought of the
literature programme.
Their teacher had opted to create her own literature syllabus as opposed to
choosing the set-pieces. I was very impressed by the thought and work that
had gone into it, as well as more than a tad jealous of the fact that she
had been teaching pupils who were of the level of coping with something a
little more stimulating than the poem Grandmother.
However, it seemed that some of the pupils were not happy with the pieces
that she had chosen and with the fact that they had had to work very hard
to complete their logs. Later, the teacher told me that she had had a hard
time getting pupils to hand in all of the assignments and that some would
be getting low grades for their logs. One mother had phoned her to complain
that her daughter had only been given 70 as a final grade. Her son who was
in another school where the set-pieces had been studied had not had to work
as hard as his sister and had got 90 for his log.
I commented that the point was that the harder that a teacher works, the
harder the pupils will have to work. However, they will do so, in general,
without the enthusiasm that accompanies the teachers efforts. And, in the
case of the log, when they realise that there was a way of doing less work
and attaining the same or even higher grades, they will feel, quite
understandably, annoyed about this.
One of the selling points of the log at first was that teachers could
teach the literary pieces that they want to teach rather than the worn-out
stories that have been staples of the syllabus for decades. It seems though
that in many places this isnt being done for several reasons. Firstly, it
turns out that it is not so simple to get approval for stories. Having
looked through the list of pieces that have been given approval for the 4
and 5 point exams on the TLC site, I was unable to find much consistency in
the decision-making process. Secondly, many teachers simply dont have the
time to start from scratch and build their own syllabus. It is far easier
to take the ready-made one-size-fits-all pieces and their accompanying
exercises in the text books. Also, building your own syllabus is a risky
business. There is no guarantee that the pupils will be inspired by the
stories and poems you have selected. When a pupil complains that he doesnt
like A Summers Reading, what better answer can there be for a teacher
than to give a shrug of the shoulders and say Thats the syllabus. You
want your Bagrut, youd better study the story, no matter what you think of
it.
But therein lies the rub. The new literature programme was enacted in order
to amend a previously untenable situation. When literature became an
internal component of the Bagrut and was only assessed as part of the
school grade, it was inevitable that some schools would not do the required
syllabus in its entirety or not at all whilst others stuck to it
religiously. In other words, not all pupils were doing the same amount or
level of work, but were receiving the same grades at the end of the day.
The purpose of the new programme was to standardise the teaching of
literature as much as possible.
The irony is, though, that now the situation has become more inequitable
with some teachers building challenging and demanding syllabi whilst others
are just going through the textbooks that have been published over the past
couple of years. In the old days, the literature component was less weighty
as it was part of one of the school grades given on a module so it could be
argued that doing it properly or not made little difference in the end.
Nowadays, it counts for almost a third of the final grade.
The only fair solution in my opinion would be to get everyone to do the log
based on the set-pieces. I know that this was not the point of the log in
the first place; however, I believe that it is nigh on impossible to have
standardisation when a third of the final grade depends on what the teacher
wants or doesnt want to teach. Perhaps when pressure is brought to bear
from parents and principals, even the most enthusiastic teachers will
realise that it is their own interests to go along with the set-pieces.
This is, of course, an unfortunate situation, but if the powers-that-be
want to encourage teachers to teach literary pieces that they feel
comfortable with then the whole idea of the log has to be rethought. Two
suggestions have sprung to mind; a) reduce the weight of the log in the
final calculation of the Bagrut exam or b) offer a 6-point Bagrut in which
teachers could build their own syllabi which would give pupils the feeling
that if they work harder for their Bagrut, it will be worth more than those
who are just doing the set-pieces.
David Graniewitz
Jerusalem
**************************************
** Join ETNI on Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/31737970668/
** ETNI Blog and Poll
http://ask-etni.blogspot.co.il/
** Etni homepage - http://www.etni.org
** post to ETNI List - etni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
** help - ask@xxxxxxxx
***************************************
Other related posts:
