Barbara,
As we read essays about basic writing this semester, I really struggled with some of the issues around the "equity versus excellence" controversy. I do not think that high stakes testing (CUNY’s three Freshman Skills Assessment Tests) is productive as well. I have seen firsthand the effects of those placement tests on student morale, and I do not think that you can accurately measure a student's level of competence on a 90 minute exam where students are expected to revise, edit and proofread in a limited time period.
I had never thought about it, but in a way these tests are just another way to keep what society considers "undeserving" students out of educational and economic mainstream. Certainly, the "equity versus excellence" argument is complicated. Students in New York come from various backgrounds--many of them live in poverty and attend underperforming high schools. Some of their parents are hardworking immigrants, and they do not speak or write English at home.
The ending of open admissions was a cop-out, and pushing more remedial education into the community colleges would be fine accept that many of them are underfunded and overcrowded. Again, this is another example of the political and ideological nature of this controversy. Conventional wisdom has it that students--indeed all of us--should be able to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. We want to believe that America is a merit-based society, but it is disingenuous for us to expect a kid who does not have enough to eat, who is kept up at night by gunshots, and who lives in a shelter to be in par with a middle class student who lives in Park Slope and whose parents are working professionals.
No comments:
Post a Comment