Grisham makes a seemingly serious, promising beginning, about the question of domestic violence, strapping burly males who endanger lives of their own families.
"An hour later, Theo was suffering through a review of basic biology when his mind drifted back to his conversation with Pete. The poor kid was living a nightmare, afraid of getting punched by his brute of a father and afraid for his mother’s life. How was a kid like Pete supposed to sit through four days of testing, concentrate on the exams, and score well enough to get properly placed on the right track for high school? And that placement could well determine his future. It made little sense, at least to Theo."
Theo has his parents help the family, and Pete's father arrives at night creating a ruckus, demanding to see his family, and even throwing rocks at the house, shattering the glass screen, before being taken away by police. Grisham doesn't carry through with the serious issue, however, at least not immediately, but shies away instead from the really serious phenomenon, and instead compromises with a man who went astray due to his drinking and repeats after a few nights in prison. It's perhaps too demanding on courage to deal with this universal issue that plagues across time and around the globe.
He plunges instead into another serious issue, that of tests, grading, and cheating. But again, as with the domestic violence issue, he ducks in the typical style of - incorrectly labeled - "liberal" attitude and stance, to excuse it with a short paragraph about kids who are bright but lack support from parents due to their being low income group.
Seriously, are higher income society kids doing well in U.S.? Who's kidding who?!!!!
Fact is, kids from higher income groups do well only when their parents expect them to do so and to earn their way in life to match, or do better than, the life they were given as children. But if their level is higher economically, for any reason, such as being amonst the rich or otherwise high social strata such as royals, or titles landed gentry, then the usual attitude is of entitlement rather than otherwise, and teachers are treated like servants rather than givers of knowledge, with expectations of automatic good grades, with a whip of careers of those teachers who might be honest enough to not cheat, being completely destroyed, the very first time they do so.
It's only that when teachers at a low income group school cheat, they are punished when caught. At the other end, the punishment is the same but for reverse crime, that of honest grading.
In another typical twist though, it's the person who complained about the cheating is the one worried about whether the complaint was a crime! Typical, because - as often enough reflected even on screen - U.S. culture holds someone complaining about a crime as morally lower than the actual criminal, and this is so often enough even when it's the victim who complains; this bulky culture pervades so much it's held up not only in schools but at homes too, with families teaching the children to not "snitch", instead of seeing that without complaints against criminals, crime flourishes. It's as if one expects clean surroundings without a cleaner, and despises anyone who discovers or points out unclean spots. But surely, if one has a lack of ability to deal with crime, it couldn't be morally more correct to suffer it in silence rather than speak about it to authorities?
That attitude of blaming the complainant rather than the criminal has roots in church supporting a silent suffering from those not in power, whether it's about domestic violence or not a domestic one.
And while one is on the topic, the middle strata that can support a child during education but with a clear understanding that the child must do one's best at performance and the future must depend on it, is a very thin strata in most societies. The upper strata has its future assured via properties far too secure, so the child has only to learn to keep the status quo at the very least, and isn't burdened with expectation of learning anything at school, much less aspire to a demanding profession.
In a bizarre twist April feels guilty about sending the complaint so much so she writes to the authorities identifying herself as the source of the trouble!
There's that bully culture again, making snitching worse than crimes such as physical assault or theft.
And Theo has a class where everyone agrees that cheating on tests isn't a crime! Everyone also agrees that suspension or expulsion is appropriate punishment for cheating.
If it isn't a crime, why punishment? Because U.S. turns everything upside down, and defines crime as strictly those activities punishable with prison time?
But this ignores the basic fundamental difference between U.S. where they use competitive grading and elsewhere where they do it objectively. In U.S. they expect a bell curve for grades because statistics tells them to, and they aren't prepared to deal with the whole class doing one hundred percent correct, or simply refusing to take the test, or walking out after answering half the questions correctly. Or any such variations thereof.
In reality anything can happen, though, and objective grading without strict adherence to the curve makes far more sense. Which would have meant that schools would know that anyone over a certain percentage would be automatically sent up, and cheating by others would only mean that some perhaps undeserving candidates were sent up too.
Theo and April were victims, not of the cheating by teachers, but of the stupid competitive grading system of U.S..
He plunges instead into another serious issue, that of tests, grading, and cheating. But again, as with the domestic violence issue, he ducks in the typical style of - incorrectly labeled - "liberal" attitude and stance, to excuse it with a short paragraph about kids who are bright but lack support from parents due to their being low income group.
................................................................................................
Fact is, kids from higher income groups do well only when their parents expect them to do so and to earn their way in life to match, or do better than, the life they were given as children. But if their level is higher economically, for any reason, such as being amonst the rich or otherwise high social strata such as royals, or titles landed gentry, then the usual attitude is of entitlement rather than otherwise, and teachers are treated like servants rather than givers of knowledge, with expectations of automatic good grades, with a whip of careers of those teachers who might be honest enough to not cheat, being completely destroyed, the very first time they do so.
It's only that when teachers at a low income group school cheat, they are punished when caught. At the other end, the punishment is the same but for reverse crime, that of honest grading.
In another typical twist though, it's the person who complained about the cheating is the one worried about whether the complaint was a crime! Typical, because - as often enough reflected even on screen - U.S. culture holds someone complaining about a crime as morally lower than the actual criminal, and this is so often enough even when it's the victim who complains; this bulky culture pervades so much it's held up not only in schools but at homes too, with families teaching the children to not "snitch", instead of seeing that without complaints against criminals, crime flourishes. It's as if one expects clean surroundings without a cleaner, and despises anyone who discovers or points out unclean spots. But surely, if one has a lack of ability to deal with crime, it couldn't be morally more correct to suffer it in silence rather than speak about it to authorities?
That attitude of blaming the complainant rather than the criminal has roots in church supporting a silent suffering from those not in power, whether it's about domestic violence or not a domestic one.
And while one is on the topic, the middle strata that can support a child during education but with a clear understanding that the child must do one's best at performance and the future must depend on it, is a very thin strata in most societies. The upper strata has its future assured via properties far too secure, so the child has only to learn to keep the status quo at the very least, and isn't burdened with expectation of learning anything at school, much less aspire to a demanding profession.
................................................................................................
In a bizarre twist April feels guilty about sending the complaint so much so she writes to the authorities identifying herself as the source of the trouble!
There's that bully culture again, making snitching worse than crimes such as physical assault or theft.
And Theo has a class where everyone agrees that cheating on tests isn't a crime! Everyone also agrees that suspension or expulsion is appropriate punishment for cheating.
If it isn't a crime, why punishment? Because U.S. turns everything upside down, and defines crime as strictly those activities punishable with prison time?
................................................................................................
Another point through the story is about Theo and his friend April being victims of this cheating by the teachers, since the cheating brought the grades of several others up.But this ignores the basic fundamental difference between U.S. where they use competitive grading and elsewhere where they do it objectively. In U.S. they expect a bell curve for grades because statistics tells them to, and they aren't prepared to deal with the whole class doing one hundred percent correct, or simply refusing to take the test, or walking out after answering half the questions correctly. Or any such variations thereof.
In reality anything can happen, though, and objective grading without strict adherence to the curve makes far more sense. Which would have meant that schools would know that anyone over a certain percentage would be automatically sent up, and cheating by others would only mean that some perhaps undeserving candidates were sent up too.
Theo and April were victims, not of the cheating by teachers, but of the stupid competitive grading system of U.S..
................................................................................................
The conclusion of the case is typical of the, again, - falsely labled - "liberal" attitude.
"No more standardized testing. No more “teaching to the tests.” No more tracking. No more competition for the Honors track. No more special classes for gifted students and lesser classes for lesser students."
In reality this merely is a convenient escape, one that has been practiced increasingly in last half of the twentieth century in U.S.. along with other such "liberal" freedoms as holding all subjects an equal choice.
Which, in reality, translates to students in college taking algebra when they haven't done mathematics in high school and cannot do fractions, a really pathetic state. It ends up with a volatile situation in college because the students expect every subject to be easy on par with, say, rock or films, which they were allowed to do as an alternative to mathematics during high school.
But that's just as stupid as expecting a lifelong donut munching couch potato to suddenly be the star of American Ballet in one semester, or a quarter! In intellectual terms, since things aren't visible or physically touchable, this fact escapes most, and they think that holding all subjects equal is the golden attitude.
But really it's only the most convenient escape sought and found by the once beleaguered educators who were then constantly at warpath with those telling them to go easy, make "math" "fun", and so on, alon with how tests are bad and everyone deserves promotion equally.
If that were true, why won't everyone be considered a U.S. doctor and a lawyer, legally able to write prescriptions and getting paid like every rich lawyer? Because fraud stops at end of college?
The conclusion of the case is typical of the, again, - falsely labled - "liberal" attitude.
"No more standardized testing. No more “teaching to the tests.” No more tracking. No more competition for the Honors track. No more special classes for gifted students and lesser classes for lesser students."
In reality this merely is a convenient escape, one that has been practiced increasingly in last half of the twentieth century in U.S.. along with other such "liberal" freedoms as holding all subjects an equal choice.
Which, in reality, translates to students in college taking algebra when they haven't done mathematics in high school and cannot do fractions, a really pathetic state. It ends up with a volatile situation in college because the students expect every subject to be easy on par with, say, rock or films, which they were allowed to do as an alternative to mathematics during high school.
But that's just as stupid as expecting a lifelong donut munching couch potato to suddenly be the star of American Ballet in one semester, or a quarter! In intellectual terms, since things aren't visible or physically touchable, this fact escapes most, and they think that holding all subjects equal is the golden attitude.
But really it's only the most convenient escape sought and found by the once beleaguered educators who were then constantly at warpath with those telling them to go easy, make "math" "fun", and so on, alon with how tests are bad and everyone deserves promotion equally.
If that were true, why won't everyone be considered a U.S. doctor and a lawyer, legally able to write prescriptions and getting paid like every rich lawyer? Because fraud stops at end of college?
................................................................................................
................................................................................................
................................................
................................................
April 12, 2020 - April 19, 2020.
ISBN 978 1 444 76775 9April 12, 2020 - April 19, 2020.
................................................
................................................
................................................
