It is gov't employees, from the federal DOE to state DOE's ( i.e. New York's board of Regents ) to the NEA, as well as gov't employee college deans and high school principals in lesser degree, who set or change curricula and criteria for passing versus failing. While I didn't want to go into detail earlier, it was in fact these gov't employees ( undoubtedly under pressure from the politicians who control their budgets ) who have been responsible for 'watering down' both high school and college curricula and testing standards over the past decade which has now led to a perceived 'second tier' status for state college degrees. The pressure of course was based on earlier statistics that showed a comparatively large number of inner city / minority students were flunking out.I just don't see where governments have much say in the matter. There is the concept of self-responsibility.
I don't know whether you meant it or not, but the concept of self-responsibility should have been left standing i.e. continue to offer the same standards of difficulty for curricula and testing, and if a comparatively large number of poorly prepared inner city / minority students couldn't master the curricula and pass the tests then those consequences should have been accepted without complaint. Of course, in reality, a large number of complaints arose ... most of which involved supposed racial discrimination ... thus politicians brought pressure to bear and the curricula / testing criteria was 'watered down' to insure that a certain number of inner city / minority students passed and graduated. But as a consequence, the same 'watered down' curricula / testing criteria also 'devalued' the public college degree obtained by those students who could have also passed under the original curricula / testing criteria.



Reply With Quote


Bookmarks