October 4, 2003 "But he tried," whined a voice in the back of the classroom.
|
I had just stated that Jimmy Carter was one of the worse American presidents ever, and here was a young woman defending him, saying he was a good president simply because "he tried." I was incredulous, to say the least, and I still am. How could an otherwise intelligent young woman say such an ignorant thing? I have never known anyone, up until then, to be considered a success simply because he had tried. My recurring thought was that a person was considered successful because of the results they procure, and Jimmy Carter had not obtained any positive results during his administration. His domestic policy left the United States in a mess. High gas prices and long lines for gas were more prevalent than the peanuts on Carter's peanut farm, and both inflation and unemployment were in the double digits. His foreign policy was not any better. He was unable to rescue our hostages from a third world country. Moreover, his solution to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the Summer Olympics and impose a grain embargo, which Reagan lifted because of the harm it caused the American grain farmers. He even proceeded to give back the Panama Canal, undoing years of blood, money, and effort. Even after his presidency, he is nose-deep in failure and scandal. He has praised both Fidel Castro, the great upholder of human liberties, and Kim Il Sung, the man who miraculously fed the starving North Koreans with only five small barley loaves and two small fish. He also paired with former President Clinton to broker a deal with North Korea that allowed Pyongyang leadership to continue its nuclear weapon program while starving, or rather, feeding her people. So, even after knowing all this, we can still say with confidence that Jimmy Carter the peanut farmer is a good president, just because "he tried." Since this ludicrous mentality has become so ubiquitous to the point where it influences our understanding of history, it should come as no surprise that it has now been espoused by elementary educators. The current thought among educators, or at least the teachers' union, is that children, just because they have tried, should be passed from grade to grade to keep their fragile self-esteem from shattering. However, the approach to schooling that gives effort preeminence over ability does not prepare America's future generation for its potential careers or next level of education. Recently, there was a story about a sixteen-year-old girl who, for eight straight years, was passed to the next grade-level even though the school had declared her illiterate. She sued and the city is now paying for a private tutor. Like this young lady and her mother found, a system that awards solely on effort (like attending school) does not prepare the child for the future. The real world is different from the revisionist history or elementary school. Effort in college does not equal good grades--if it did, I would have a perfect grade point average. A student does not always get an A on a paper he has been preparing for several weeks nor does he pass a class just because he attended and took all the tests, quizzes, and homework. Nor does effort in the workforce count for job stability. A telemarketer who makes a multitude of calls but sells no product will be fired. A receptionist tries to get to work on time but always shows up late does not have a chance for keeping her current position. Therefore, unless you are the former President Jimmy Carter or attending grade school, trying does not translate into success. |