They did fail to demonstrate knowledge of lexicographical order, which this exercise seems to be aiming for with the inclusion of pond and pumpkin, so I think it’s a bit cynical to consider failing the student on this a means of opression or subjugation.
Let me put it this way then. I wonder if they will give him credit for his knowledge because he proved he knows what “alphabetical order” is. Will he lose any credit because he didn’t follow, or misunderstood, the question? Will he be marked on what he knows or how he understands the query?
This is a neurodivergent solution. You can know everything correctly but without a properly defined problem, you go with your best assumption. People that think differently, assume different things.
They did fail to demonstrate knowledge of lexicographical order, which this exercise seems to be aiming for with the inclusion of pond and pumpkin, so I think it’s a bit cynical to consider failing the student on this a means of opression or subjugation.
Let me put it this way then. I wonder if they will give him credit for his knowledge because he proved he knows what “alphabetical order” is. Will he lose any credit because he didn’t follow, or misunderstood, the question? Will he be marked on what he knows or how he understands the query?
It’s elementary school. They’d probably just explain it and have them try again.
The child did not prove that they know what alphabetical order is, they proved that they know the alphabet.
This does not showcase intellect, it showcases a lack of critical thinking.
This is a neurodivergent solution. You can know everything correctly but without a properly defined problem, you go with your best assumption. People that think differently, assume different things.