 |
| Pixabay |
Zero assignments? Really?
Your kid's first step to reading made easier. See video by clicking here.
Consequently, the Department of Education (DEPED) issued Memo 392 to this effect which was justified by former DEPED Secretary Armin Luistro as a measure to allow school kids enough time for playing and family bonding. The education secretary in the 1970s should've thought of this, too. Old school of thought on this issue maintains that in the past, school children had more time for play after school and yet had higher literacy rate. Yeah. I mean, people then were good at grammar and math even if they were just elementary grads. And play “is an essential part of every child’s life and is vital for the enjoyment of childhood as well as social, emotional, intellectual and physical development,” according to PlayEngland.Org.Uk.
Reading head start for kids 2 to 12. See video here.
On the other hand, more-homework advocates point to remarkable results in Singapore, Shanghi in China, and Russia where kids spend from 9 to more than 13 hours weekly for homework [Quartz, qz.com], especially Singapore where kids face up to not just 9 hours of homework but very strict study disciplines as well. I'm just glad I wasn't a Singaporean kid. I mean, why 9 hours for homework? WHY?
But how true and proven are these theories and how effective are they? Have they done formal studies on these assumptions? Particularly, what did DEPED base Memo 392 on? Did it do surveys and sample surveys in strategic places in the country or did it simply adopt new homework trends abroad? We have this fondness for imitating anything we see from abroad, like extending school years, K-to-12, the idea of incorporating Korean language into the curriculum and all that crap.
In light of Memo 392, I think several schools have started trying out the lesser homework policy as a kind of experimental study. Consequently, this needs to be examined and evaluated to ascertain how effective it really is before adopting it as a permanent feature of the school’s curriculum.
The exercise may offer some relief to all parties concerned—teachers, parents and especially the pupils—but what would its effect be, especially in the long term? Would less homework result to better learning? Would that premise be effective to our local setting and culture? The effect needs to be measured.
How about the idea of giving more homework? Some teachers maintain that homework is the heart of learning. It further propels learning results in pupils, and added homework, they claim, can challenge them to push a bit further beyond their limits, improving their learning capacity. Really? If so, then why did I end up way below average after elementary? To me, more homework just robbed me of time for play and TV.
If there would be any study on this, the scope should cover some results on how the family and social life of the subjects are affected during the experiment. Do they actually have more time for play and family bonding, and does having time for these things really improve the pupils’ overall development, especially academically?
It has been a serious debate both locally and abroad whether grade schoolers should be given less or more homework on weekends to learn better. In fact, the matter has taken weighty proportions lately that some quarters are clamoring for local education authorities to take radical steps at lessening—if not utterly ditching—weekend homework as they do in Finland, Japan and South Korea where pupils excel academically by world standards even with less (or no) homework.
I hope they'd thought of this in my grade school years. Too late for me now.
I hope they'd thought of this in my grade school years. Too late for me now.
Your kid's first step to reading made easier. See video by clicking here.
Consequently, the Department of Education (DEPED) issued Memo 392 to this effect which was justified by former DEPED Secretary Armin Luistro as a measure to allow school kids enough time for playing and family bonding. The education secretary in the 1970s should've thought of this, too. Old school of thought on this issue maintains that in the past, school children had more time for play after school and yet had higher literacy rate. Yeah. I mean, people then were good at grammar and math even if they were just elementary grads. And play “is an essential part of every child’s life and is vital for the enjoyment of childhood as well as social, emotional, intellectual and physical development,” according to PlayEngland.Org.Uk.
Reading head start for kids 2 to 12. See video here.
On the other hand, more-homework advocates point to remarkable results in Singapore, Shanghi in China, and Russia where kids spend from 9 to more than 13 hours weekly for homework [Quartz, qz.com], especially Singapore where kids face up to not just 9 hours of homework but very strict study disciplines as well. I'm just glad I wasn't a Singaporean kid. I mean, why 9 hours for homework? WHY?
But how true and proven are these theories and how effective are they? Have they done formal studies on these assumptions? Particularly, what did DEPED base Memo 392 on? Did it do surveys and sample surveys in strategic places in the country or did it simply adopt new homework trends abroad? We have this fondness for imitating anything we see from abroad, like extending school years, K-to-12, the idea of incorporating Korean language into the curriculum and all that crap.
In light of Memo 392, I think several schools have started trying out the lesser homework policy as a kind of experimental study. Consequently, this needs to be examined and evaluated to ascertain how effective it really is before adopting it as a permanent feature of the school’s curriculum.
The exercise may offer some relief to all parties concerned—teachers, parents and especially the pupils—but what would its effect be, especially in the long term? Would less homework result to better learning? Would that premise be effective to our local setting and culture? The effect needs to be measured.
How about the idea of giving more homework? Some teachers maintain that homework is the heart of learning. It further propels learning results in pupils, and added homework, they claim, can challenge them to push a bit further beyond their limits, improving their learning capacity. Really? If so, then why did I end up way below average after elementary? To me, more homework just robbed me of time for play and TV.
If there would be any study on this, the scope should cover some results on how the family and social life of the subjects are affected during the experiment. Do they actually have more time for play and family bonding, and does having time for these things really improve the pupils’ overall development, especially academically?
No comments:
Post a Comment
NONJOINER discusses how you can quit joining the crowd and see how the bible helps you think independently to develop your unique person as God wants you to and develop an authentic social life.