SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
New Zealand has sunk to a new low in modern education. A number of high school students have started a petition to not be failed on a national history exam as they did not understand the meaning of the word 'trivial'. For those not in the know, trivial means "of little value or importance" which aptly describes this petition given that it is being made by grade 13 high school students who by all rights should know the meaning of this word. More than 2400 people have signed the petition 'expressing their frustration with the exam question'. Student Logan Stadnyk claimed that he was "lucky" to have known what the word meant, as half his class didn't. "New Zealand History Teachers' Association chairman Graeme Ball has sided with the students calling the exam a 'little bit of a snafu'" but not providing an adequate answer as to why students in grade 13 would not understand a common English word.
Have the three Rs lost all meaning in schools? Are we failing our students? Or is this just another case of today's teens being snowflakes?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by jb on Sunday November 18 2018, @04:14AM (3 children)
The exam was in "National History".
Presumably in New Zealand, "National" means "New Zealand".
Since the quote in question from from Julius Caesar (and NZ was never part of the Roman Empire), it seems reasonable to assume that at some earlier point in their education, those students had studied other parts of history, at least from the time of Caesar to the discovery of New Zealand (otherwise, they'd be asking the students to comment, in an NZ History exam, on Caesar's quote without understanding the context of that quote -- which would make it a rather silly question, given that history as a discipline is all about context).
So, if we assume they'd studied history from Caesar to Tasman, there would have been plenty of times they'd have seen the word 'trivial' before ... indeed, having studied all that history, they should be expected to know that the word most likely derives from the "Trivium" (grammar, logic & rhetoric) of classical education fame [later considered "trivial" in comparison to the other four liberal arts, because they were taught first -- hence the word's modern meaning], from their earlier study of medieval and/or renaissance history.
Of course, if they'd actually had a classical education, the question would be moot because they'd have a far better understanding of language in general...
But even if neither English nor History is taught with any rigor in NZ today, one would still expect them to have come across the word "trivial" in Mathematics.
By matriculation level (and this exam was supposed to be at that standard) -- at least as I remember it -- for every new theorem introduced in Mathematics class, the teacher would either write a proof on the blackboard or ask the students to come up with one as a homework exercise ... unless the proof required next to no thought, in which case he'd simply say "the proof is trivial".
So, in order for the students to have a legitimate excuse for not knowing the meaning of the word "trivial" by the time they get to their matriculation exams, the education system would have had to fail at teaching History, English and Mathematics.
If that's the case, the only reasonable solution is to fire all the teachers (starting with those who designed the faulty curriculum), refund all the school/exam fees paid (if any) and let the students try again next year with better teachers and proper curriculum.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Sunday November 18 2018, @10:05PM (2 children)
No it wasn't. It was a History exam, my son took it.
One of the subjects he studied this year was the Vietnam War.
(Score: 2) by jb on Monday November 19 2018, @07:55AM (1 child)
Thanks -- I stand corrected.
I got "National History" from TFA -- I know, silly me: should never read those ;)
Still, the main point remains unchanged: if after 13 years of formal education, a substantial proportion of students still aren't familiar with as common a word as "trivial", clearly the system itself (the chosen curriculum and/or the way it's been taught) has failed so needs a major overhaul.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 19 2018, @07:33PM
Maybe it does need an overhaul, I am unsure if the system is at fault after having children in it for nearly 20 years. Good teachers are good teachers whether the system is poor or not and my boys had a few.
In my view the parents at are least partly at fault.