{"id":5908,"date":"2020-07-16T14:23:56","date_gmt":"2020-07-16T12:23:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/anandaeurope.org\/?p=5908"},"modified":"2023-03-27T15:56:10","modified_gmt":"2023-03-27T13:56:10","slug":"its-time-we-started-raising-organic-children","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/anandaeurope.org\/blog\/2020\/07\/16\/its-time-we-started-raising-organic-children\/","title":{"rendered":"It\u2019s Time We Started Raising
Organic Children"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"OrganicAbout 50 years ago, a small but dedicated group of people began challenging American society\u2019s attitudes toward food production. The prevailing opinion at the time was that vegetables should be judged primarily by their outward appearance. Bigger and redder tomatoes were deemed more desirable, and so American agriculture brought in the chemical fertilizers and pesticides that would support this type of farming. But a group, who gradually became known as the organic farming movement, persisted in pointing out that the real worth of tomatoes lies not in their appearance, but in their nutritional content which was being sacrificed in the race to improve the more superficial features. It took awhile, but gradually people began to listen, to the extent that a recent study [1]<\/a> shows that 75% of Americans now purchase at least some organic food.<\/p>\n

Today we face a similar misconception in an even more important part of our lives, our children\u2019s education. Everyone wants our children to succeed; the problem lies in how we define success. Much like the misplaced focus on bigger and redder tomatoes, many people accept the theory that student success can be measured by standardized test scores. These tests are mandated in almost all public schools and exercise an enormous effect on our children\u2019s future, as well as on the careers of their teachers and administrators. With such compelling consequences, it is appropriate to ask what exactly these tests are measuring.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Below are some of the topics covered at the fifth through eleventh grade level on one of our most widely-administered standardized tests [2]<\/a>. In going through the list, notice not only the number of items you are familiar with, but also how important this information has been in your adult life. (It should be mentioned that these items are not taken from the more rigorous \u201cadvanced\u201d level of the examination, but from the easier, \u201cproficient\u201d level.)<\/p>\n

1) the function of the esophagus,
\n2) the difference between a stereoscope and a laser light with holograph
\n3) the reason fossils are found in sedimentary rocks.
\n4) the contributions of Hammurabi,
\n5) the differences between metals and nonmetals
\n6) the form of energy released or absorbed in most chemical reactions.
\n7) the Schlieffen Plan
\n8) the Tennis Court Oath.
\n9) the Social Gospel movement
\n10) the Reconstruction Finance Corporation<\/p>\n

The point, of course, is not that the Schlieffen Plan, the Tennis Court Oath, or any of the other items might not be valuable pieces of information in their own specialized fields of knowledge. It is rather that in using such relatively obscure data to measure the overall effectiveness of our schools, we make the same type of mistake that people made in judging tomatoes: we are once again focusing on superficial factors at the expense of far more important considerations. When teachers and administrators feel pressured to make sure their students have been exposed to the \u201cright\u201d set of facts, creativity and enthusiasm are quickly replaced with what has been termed \u201cdead-ucation\u201d.<\/p>\n

\"\"In a recent New York Times article, a teacher questions this emphasis on standardized testing. \u201cThis push on tests is missing out on some serious parts of what it means to be a successful human. Whether it\u2019s the pioneer in the Conestoga wagon or someone coming here in the 1920s from southern Italy, there was this idea in America that if you worked hard and you showed real grit, that you could be successful. Strangely, we\u2019ve now forgotten that. People who have an easy time of things, who get 800s on their SAT\u2019s, I worry that those people get feedback that everything they\u2019re doing is great. And I think as a result, we are actually setting them up for long-term failure. When that person suddenly has to face up to a difficult moment, then I think they\u2019re screwed, to be honest. I don\u2019t think they\u2019ve grown the capacities to be able to handle that.\u201d[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

From an insightful website comes a parent\u2019s indictment of the consequences of dead-ucation. \u201cI saw the light in his eyes extinguishing\u2026These energetic, engaged, accomplished, six year olds turned into twelve year olds who ask \u2018Are we getting graded on this?\u2019 or \u2018Is this going to be on the test?\u2019 That flame they had at age six didn\u2019t burn out on its own, we smothered it.\u201d[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

And from an administrator at Peking University High School in Shanghai, one of the \u201cwinners\u201d in the most recent worldwide standardized testing administered by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, \u201cTest taking is damaging to students\u2019 creativity, critical thinking skills and, in general, China\u2019s ability to compete in the world. It can make students very narrow minded. In the 21st century, China needs the creative types its education system isn\u2019t producing.\u201d[5]<\/a><\/p>\n

The time has come to ask what a more \u201corganic\u201d approach to education would look like. What if our schools shifted their focus from the previous list of facts to the following considerations?<\/p>\n