Sally08
08-16-2008, 03:34 PM
OBE = Outcome Based Education
This article of mine was published as a Letter to the Editor about the 1996 Olympics.
OBE has been superseded by No Child Left Behind. Both emphasize equal *outcome* vs. equal *access*.
NOTE: This is a *parody*, the opposite of my beliefs!
=================================
Dear Editor:
I have been watching the Olympics lately and I am concerned about the possible negative impact of the United States' participation in this event.
In particular, I am concerned about the self-esteem of the athletes. What about the self-esteem of the athletes who failed to qualify for the Olympic teams? What about the self-esteem of the athletes who ended up in tears, because they failed to win an Olympic medal? What about the harmful effect of publicly posting the judge's scores for an athlete for the whole world to see? Out of the thousands of participating athletes, only a few will win medals. Wouldn't it be less harmful, if there were no scores and every participant received a medal for participating?
I don't think that it is fair that only some athletes get to compete. Shouldn't the United States have a goal that 90% of its citizens be able to qualify? Since competition is inherently harmful, shouldn't all events be cooperative relays, rather than individual events, with heterogenous groupings of athletes with a wide range of athletic abilities? Then, the more advanced athletes could be role models, as well as teach the less advanced athletes. Also, no individual athletes would feel badly about not having done as well as others.
Another concern I have is that I think the Olympic coaches push the athletes too hard with all of the emphasis on winning. Shouldn't the coaches simply be facilitators, instead, encouraging the athletes to work together with their peers to determine what is best? In particular, shouldn't the athletes from each country have hands-on experiences to learn about the sports programs of each of the other participating countries, since the Olympics are a global event? For that matter, shouldn't the athletes from various countries be placed on intermixed teams, so that no country feels badly about how its athletes performed?
Do these statements sound ludicrous for the sports arena? Then, why are parents and taxpayers allowing these philosophies to be implemented in the academic arena?
This article of mine was published as a Letter to the Editor about the 1996 Olympics.
OBE has been superseded by No Child Left Behind. Both emphasize equal *outcome* vs. equal *access*.
NOTE: This is a *parody*, the opposite of my beliefs!
=================================
Dear Editor:
I have been watching the Olympics lately and I am concerned about the possible negative impact of the United States' participation in this event.
In particular, I am concerned about the self-esteem of the athletes. What about the self-esteem of the athletes who failed to qualify for the Olympic teams? What about the self-esteem of the athletes who ended up in tears, because they failed to win an Olympic medal? What about the harmful effect of publicly posting the judge's scores for an athlete for the whole world to see? Out of the thousands of participating athletes, only a few will win medals. Wouldn't it be less harmful, if there were no scores and every participant received a medal for participating?
I don't think that it is fair that only some athletes get to compete. Shouldn't the United States have a goal that 90% of its citizens be able to qualify? Since competition is inherently harmful, shouldn't all events be cooperative relays, rather than individual events, with heterogenous groupings of athletes with a wide range of athletic abilities? Then, the more advanced athletes could be role models, as well as teach the less advanced athletes. Also, no individual athletes would feel badly about not having done as well as others.
Another concern I have is that I think the Olympic coaches push the athletes too hard with all of the emphasis on winning. Shouldn't the coaches simply be facilitators, instead, encouraging the athletes to work together with their peers to determine what is best? In particular, shouldn't the athletes from each country have hands-on experiences to learn about the sports programs of each of the other participating countries, since the Olympics are a global event? For that matter, shouldn't the athletes from various countries be placed on intermixed teams, so that no country feels badly about how its athletes performed?
Do these statements sound ludicrous for the sports arena? Then, why are parents and taxpayers allowing these philosophies to be implemented in the academic arena?