洛杉矶时报十年前已经对一刀切减负说”不“_风闻

本文摘自2011年7月1日《洛杉矶时报》，下面是翻译版，最后给大家呈上英文原文。

      尽管家庭作业历来就不受学生甚至许多家长的热烈欢迎，但近年来它尤其饱受诟病。美国各地的学区，尤其是最近的洛杉矶联合学区，都在改变其对这一教育惯例的看法。不幸的是，洛杉矶联合学区制定了一项硬性政策，要求除一些高级课程外，家庭作业在学生学业成绩中所占比重不得超过10%.

      这一规定旨在解决家境贫困或家庭状况混乱的学生在完成家庭作业时可能遇到的困难。但政策内容不明晰且自相矛盾。当然，不应给学生布置他们无法独立完成或需要昂贵设备才能完成的家庭作业。但如果学区本质上是在给那些因家庭环境复杂而不做作业的学生通行证，这就近于冒险地暗示，应降低对贫困学生的标准。学区管理人员称家庭作业仍将是学校教育的一部分；教师可以自主安排作业量。

       然而，由于作业在成绩中的比重不超过10%,学生可以轻易地逃避一半的作业，而成绩报告单上却几乎不会有什么变化。有些学生可能不完成家庭作业也能在州考中表现出色，但那些做了家庭作业且在州考中表现出色的学生又该如何解释呢？极有可能是家庭作业起了促进作用。然而该政策不是授权教师去寻求什么样的方式最适合学生，而是强制实行了一条死板的、一刀切的规定。同时，这一政策并未解决任何关于家庭作业的真正棘手的问题。

      如果学区认为家庭作业对学生的学业成绩影响不大，那么就应该减少或者取消家庭作业，而不是让它在成绩中的比重变得微乎其微。相反，如果家庭作业确实重要，那就应该让其在成绩中占据重要比重。与此同时，这一政策并未采取任何措施确保学生的家庭作业有意义或是适合他们的年龄和所学科目，也无法确保教师布置的家庭作业不会超出他们愿意批改的量。

      在负责制定教育政策的校董事会深入调查并举行公众听证会期间，有关家庭作业的相关规定应暂缓实施。对于洛杉矶联合学区来说，正确处理好家庭作业这件事还为时不晚。

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.

我转这篇文章，并不是说唯美国的看法马首是瞻，而是想给大家提供更多的思考。

同时，我发现一个问题，就是我国教育学界的很多人士，翻译欧美教育理念的时候，经常断章取义。比如美国著名教育学家杜威，我们国内的教育人士只提杜威”以学生为中心，尊重孩子的兴趣和爱好“，完全不提杜威也提过”教师的惩戒“作用。你没看错，杜威真的主张”必要惩戒“学生，让学生学会遵守规则。我曾问导师为何不提杜威的这一观点，他们说，与当前的教育理念不符。

通过读英文原著，我发现很多西方的教育家，都主张”讲授法“和”探究法“各有利弊。但是当他们的著作来到中国，不知为