April 10, 2008

New curriculum for our school

Posted in Humor?, Theology at 3:36 pm by Matt Porter

Teaching school, one often finds that students fail to achieve maximum potential. Whatever the reason, few students actually perform at peak capability. This sub-optimal performance harms the reputation of our school in the community.

After six years of reputation-decreasing mediocrity, I finally broached the subject with my administrator. He was surprisingly open and gave me free rein to explore other curricula which may enhance our school’s reputation by highlighting our educational prowess.

The curriculum we have selected is published by Calvin-MacArthur-Piper, Ltd., and has several features which will we feel will bring our school the reputation it deserves. I have detailed these features below (quoting from the information packet provided by the publisher):

1. Total Inability—the student is completely incapable of any worthwhile academic activity on his own. Any attempts at studying or learning are wrongly motivated and ineffectual at best, and as such, provide no benefit for the student in the eyes of the school.

2. Unconditional Selection—because the student is completely incapable of academic success on his own, the school must choose those students which it wishes to do well. Only those students who are chosen can ultimately succeed in school. This selection takes place even before students apply to the school. The success achieved by the selected students is completely dependent upon the school and in no part comes from the students, so all the credit from their achievements must go to the school. The school’s reputation will increase, as it should. It is unfortunately common for parents, when their children are not selected, to protest that the school is choosing their child to fail. This is of course ludicrous; children who are not chosen fail because it is their nature to fail, not because of any choice made by the school.

3. Limited Achievement—While this curriculum is unlimited in the sense that it can redeem the worst of students, it is limited in that it is only effectual for those students who are selected by the school. Thus, while its power is infinite, its scope is restricted to those who are selected to pass. In no way does the unlimited power imply that it will apply to those students not already selected. The school’s reputation is increased because of the success of the selected students, but it is not impugned by failing students, since the failure is completely their own fault.

4. Irresistible Ace—Probably the most unique feature of this curriculum, this ensures that all students who are selected will succeed. It would necessarily harm the reputation of the school if a selected student failed, so selected students have no choice—they are drawn, whether they will or no, to academic success. Recent technological developments have allowed us to develop self-correcting tests which prevent selected students from missing questions. Selected students will ace each test, even if they try to fail! In keeping with the Limited Achievement feature, self-correcting tests will not function correctly for non-selected students. Both the success of the selected students will enhance the school’s reputation, and the failure of the non-selected students will vindicate the school’s choice.

5. Perseverance of Selectees—This two-fold feature guarantees the final success of the selected students, bringing credit to the school, and ensuring the school’s sovereignty over the selection process, also bringing them credit. On the positive side, if selected students begin to “fall away” from their normal work, they will ultimately and infallibly return to their successful state. On the negative side, non-selected students who temporarily manage to achieve a semblance of success are guaranteed to fall away; in fact, this falling away distinguishes the false achiever from the truly selected student.

When I initially considered this curriculum, I nearly discarded it because it appeared we would need to rewrite substantial portions of our handbook, information packet, and application. However, after some consultation with the publisher, I realized these conflicts could be avoided by a simple change in perspective. For example, when we say “Students at our school tend to outperform students in other schools by 40%,” we really mean “Those students in our school whom we have selected tend to outperform students in other schools by 40%.” When we say “Our desire is to provide each student with a solid Christian education,” we really mean “Our desire is to provide each student who belongs to the group of selected students who will pass, with a solid Christian education.” When we say, “We hope you and your child find our school an enjoyable, informative experience,” of course we are only referring to our selected students. This is so obviously the plain meaning of the text that I don’t understand how it could logically be read differently.

I really think this is the not only the best way to help our school, but also the only right way to go about education. Our whole staff is really excited about it and can’t wait to spread the good news to parents whose kids need to do better! Well, I need to go; I have a meeting with the publisher in a few minutes. They had a church program they wanted to talk to me about, too. Maybe they can help us out in that area, as well!

Advertisements

1 Comment »

  1. Lisa Gutierrez said,

    Victor: “Have you read your brother’s post?
    Lisa: “No.”
    Victor: “It’s *genius* – you should read it.”
    Lisa: “Okay.”

    🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: