洛杉磯時報十年前已經對一刀切減負説”不“_風聞

本文摘自2011年7月1日《洛杉磯時報》，下面是翻譯版，最後給大家呈上英文原文。

      儘管家庭作業歷來就不受學生甚至許多家長的熱烈歡迎，但近年來它尤其飽受詬病。美國各地的學區，尤其是最近的洛杉磯聯合學區，都在改變其對這一教育慣例的看法。不幸的是，洛杉磯聯合學區制定了一項硬性政策，要求除一些高級課程外，家庭作業在學生學業成績中所佔比重不得超過10%.

      這一規定旨在解決家境貧困或家庭狀況混亂的學生在完成家庭作業時可能遇到的困難。但政策內容不明晰且自相矛盾。當然，不應給學生布置他們無法獨立完成或需要昂貴設備才能完成的家庭作業。但如果學區本質上是在給那些因家庭環境複雜而不做作業的學生通行證，這就近於冒險地暗示，應降低對貧困學生的標準。學區管理人員稱家庭作業仍將是學校教育的一部分；教師可以自主安排作業量。

       然而，由於作業在成績中的比重不超過10%,學生可以輕易地逃避一半的作業，而成績報告單上卻幾乎不會有什麼變化。有些學生可能不完成家庭作業也能在州考中表現出色，但那些做了家庭作業且在州考中表現出色的學生又該如何解釋呢？極有可能是家庭作業起了促進作用。然而該政策不是授權教師去尋求什麼樣的方式最適合學生，而是強制實行了一條死板的、一刀切的規定。同時，這一政策並未解決任何關於家庭作業的真正棘手的問題。

      如果學區認為家庭作業對學生的學業成績影響不大，那麼就應該減少或者取消家庭作業，而不是讓它在成績中的比重變得微乎其微。相反，如果家庭作業確實重要，那就應該讓其在成績中佔據重要比重。與此同時，這一政策並未採取任何措施確保學生的家庭作業有意義或是適合他們的年齡和所學科目，也無法確保教師佈置的家庭作業不會超出他們願意批改的量。

      在負責制定教育政策的校董事會深入調查並舉行公眾聽證會期間，有關家庭作業的相關規定應暫緩實施。對於洛杉磯聯合學區來説，正確處理好家庭作業這件事還為時不晚。

英文原版：

     Homework has never been terribly popular with students and even many parents, but in recent years it has been particularly scorned. School districts across the country, most recently Los Angeles Unified, are revising their thinking on his educational ritual. Unfortunately, L.A. Unified has produced an inflexible policy which mandates that with the exception of some advanced courses, homework may no longer count for more than 10% of a student’s academic grade.

　　This rule is meant to address the difficulty that students from impoverished or chaotic homes might have in completing their homework. But the policy is unclear and contradictory. Certainly, no homework should be assigned that students cannot do without expensive equipment. But if the district is essentially giving a pass to students who do not do their homework because of complicated family lives, it is going riskily close to the implication that standards need to be lowered for poor children.

　　District administrators say that homework will still be a pat of schooling: teachers are allowed to assign as much of it as they want. But with homework counting for no more than 10% of their grades, students can easily skip half their homework and see vey little difference on their report cards. Some students might do well on state tests without completing their homework, but what about the students who performed well on the tests and did their homework? It is quite possible that the homework helped. Yet rather than empowering teachers to find what works best for their students, the policy imposes a flat, across-the-board rule.

　　At the same time, the policy addresses none of the truly thorny questions about homework. If the district finds homework to be unimportant to its students’ academic achievement, it should move to reduce or eliminate the assignments, not make them count for almost nothing. Conversely, if homework does nothing to ensure that the homework students are not assigning more than they are willing to review and correct.

      The homework rules should be put on hold while the school board, which is responsible for setting educational policy, looks into the matter and conducts public hearings. It is not too late for L.A. Unified to do homework right.

我轉這篇文章，並不是説唯美國的看法馬首是瞻，而是想給大家提供更多的思考。

同時，我發現一個問題，就是我國教育學界的很多人士，翻譯歐美教育理念的時候，經常斷章取義。比如美國著名教育學家杜威，我們國內的教育人士只提杜威”以學生為中心，尊重孩子的興趣和愛好“，完全不提杜威也提過”教師的懲戒“作用。你沒看錯，杜威真的主張”必要懲戒“學生，讓學生學會遵守規則。我曾問導師為何不提杜威的這一觀點，他們説，與當前的教育理念不符。

通過讀英文原著，我發現很多西方的教育家，都主張”講授法“和”探究法“各有利弊。但是當他們的著作來到中國，不知為