The
Washington Post published an article on December 13, 2015,
in its Education section, with the headline: ‘On the fence about Common Core:
Brilliant new approach or another fad?’ What does ‘on the fence’ mean?
According to the Free Dictionary, ‘on the
fence’ is an idiom – an informal term – meaning ‘undecided as to which of two
sides to support.’ It also means uncommitted or neutral about two options.
Fence is a barrier between two properties, or a dividing line. The word originated
in Middle English from the word ‘fens’ – a shortened version of ‘defens’
meaning to defend against attack, to safeguard, to guard, or to secure.
The article explains the Common Core State
Standards, an educational reform to introduce a set of standards designed to
have more emphasis on content and thought. The author has not ‘taken a firm
stand’ but has been ‘blowing back and forth’ about whether the Common Core is a
good idea or not.
The author provides an argument for the
Common Core, by Robert Pondiscio, a teacher who also writes for the Thomas B.
Fordham Institute: ‘by reading texts in history/social studies, science, and
other disciplines, students build a foundation of knowledge in these fields
that will also give them the background to be better readers in all content
areas. Students can only gain this foundation when the curriculum is
intentionally and coherently structured to develop rich content knowledge
within and across grades.’
The author also provides an argument against
the Common Core: ‘the Common Core doesn’t do much to strengthen our schools’
approach to writing … it means we have to rely on curriculum writers, and
particularly classroom teachers, to turn them into tools for reading,
imagination, debate, and curiosity.’
Scorecard for The Washington Post headline is 95%. The headline certainly shows
that there is no conclusive decision in the article for or against the Common Core educational
reforms. Therefore the author, who has been ‘blowing
back and forth’ has actually been ‘sitting on the fence’ – without mentioning
the fence in the article. By sitting on the fence the author is neither in one
property (reform camp) or the other – he is somewhere in between, perched on a
thin edge, or perhaps even a serrated edge. The author is ‘undecided as to
which of the two sides to support’ as the definition of ‘on the fence’ states.
The author loses five percentage points for not mentioning the fence – a
precarious and uncomfortable position indeed.
Comments
Post a Comment